• CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    45
    ·
    1 year ago

    There were no actual efforts to establish communism in eastern europe. Only autocratic regimes backed by soviet russia.

    • InternationalBastard@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      139
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s like saying democracy sucks because look at states like Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Congo and German Democratic Republic.

      When people proclaim to be something doesn’t make it true.

    • dub@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m no too learned in the subject but what would “true” communism even look like on the large scale like a country? Would it even be feasible?

      • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        60
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        True communism in a country is impossible.

        You can have socialism, or anarchy, which we’ve seen before, but communism cannot function in one country alone, unless said country is completely and absolutely self reliant.

        A major part of communism is internationalism, which is why socialist countries had the Comintern. (Communist International). Besides a political/social system, communism has a strong basis as an economic system. You can’t apply communist economic system principles to the capitalist market.

        To my knowledge, no existing country is self reliant to the point that they can completely cut off trade with the rest of the world. USSR didn’t do it, China didn’t do it and they were the two biggest countries at the time.

        That, of course is all a very surface level ELI5, and if you want to ask something more specific or in depth, feel free to.

        • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unless you’re an ultra-orthodox marxist, there is no such thing as trüe communism™.

          There always have been many different ideas what „communism“ is, e.g. there have been various „nationalist communist“ ideologies (complicated by the fact that the Russian SFSR called everything „nationalist“ that wasn’t 100% aligned with its ideas of the Soviet Union, e.g. Hungary).

          There are also no clear boundaries between communism, socialism, and anarchism, e.g. Kropotkin with his theories of anarchist communism.

          That being said, I don’t think communism is a system (either social or economic), it’s strictly an idealogy, meaning it’s a way to achieve something, i.e. the classless and stateless society. If you follow that thought to its logical end, you cannot even „achieve“ communism at all, since at this point e.g. the proletariat ceases to exist, and as a result you cannot have a „dictatorship of the proletariat“.

          It’s… complicated.

          • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            In feel like you make it complicated to arrive at your conclusion here. Communism, as described by Marx and Engels and to some degree Lenin, is something very specific that covers most aspects of the society. Political, social and economic. Marx himself wrote books upon books on the economy of a socialist, communist system.

            It is not an abstract “I don’t like capitalism so let’s try something different” approach. And yes, many have tried to adapt it, as you mentioned which is why those different approaches carry a different name ‘anarchist communism’ in your example. Because they are different enough from flat out communism.

            • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, I have a very easy explanation what communism is, it’s just that nobody else agrees is the issue.

              different approaches carry a different name

              Yeah, well… So let’s see, we have: Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism, Stalinism, Titoism, Gulyáskommunizmus (both, as mentioned before, considered „nationalist communism“ by other communists), Rätekommunismus, Realsozialismus, Maoism …

              So, which one of those is the true communism?

              Joking aside, most of the 20th century was spent with people killing other people because they had slightly different opinions on what true communism means, so it’s really not me who made things complicated.

              • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                And you keep using different names to describe them. As you should. Communism is not one thing and never was. But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

                It’s how it was defined in the communist manifesto in 1848. You could say it’s Marxism, but I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well, like Engels and others who based on Marx’s mostly economic study added the philosophical and political angles.

                Every theme or name change after the manifesto (that is not found in later revisions by the communist international) is attempts at adapting it with different angles and for different purposes and circumstances, aka NOT base or pure communism. Don’t bundle everything in one basket and try to make sense, same way that bundling Putin’s Russian form of Capitalism with US’s imperialism and French Revolution’s early capitalism together doesn’t make sense either.

                He asked for pure communism, I answered for that. If he asked about Trotsky, I’d focus more on the permanent revolution and the Fourth International. If he asked of Stalin, I’d talk about his socialism in one country theory

                • Funkwonker@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’ve got no horse in this race, I just want to point out the irony of asserting that there is only one “true” communism in reply to a comment about how leftists have spent the last century arguing over what “true” communism even is.

                • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah well, so you’re an orthodox Marxist and I disagree with you ¯\(ツ)

                  But when people refer to base or true communism, the answer is just one.

                  Aha, is that so?

                  I dislike that naming since others played a big role on forming it as well

                  Yeah, you could say that!

                  So! Let’s talk about Restif de la Bretonne who was using „communist“ and „communism“ 60-70 years before Marx writes the „Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei“. Babeuf (who called himself a „communalist“) already tried to incite a communist revolution in the 1790s. De La Hodde calls the Parisian general strike in 1840 „inspired by communist ideas“. In 1841 the „Communistes Matérialistes“ publish „L’Humanitaire“, which Nettlau calls „the first libertarian communist publication“.

                  And how come that a certain bloke named Karl Marx in his 1842 essay „Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung" finds that communism had already become an international movement. Hey, I know that name! 🤔

                  Tell me, how exactly is Marxism (or whatever you want to call it) the one and only trüe communism™ when there’s decades of different variances of communism and movements of people calling themselves communists before the „Manifest“?

                  Just face it: your beloved Marxism is just one variant of communism, which for a variety of reasons has become the best known. But it’s certainly not „base communism“.

          • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Without search engine and without going into detail that is out of the scope, anarchy is a different path to a classless system. Said classless system is different enough from communism to warrant discussion but close enough for that discussion to be devolving into anarchy vs socialism most of the time to differentiate the path to that system.

            Said path in anarchy is comprised of setting up collectives that start small, neighborhood small, and gradually evolve. Each collective shares almost everything between its members and there’s no leadership or ranking across its members.

            Anything deeper than that leads to a long discussion that is out of the scope of this thread and definitely out of the scope of the ELI5 the post I originally replied to needed or had the philosophical basis to understand possibly. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but they are quite different approaches to a similar goal, a classless society that money does not rule all.

            • Dharma Curious@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Anarchist checking in, so, y’know, bias and all that. But I’d say it’s just as impossible to have anarchism in one country. Bearing in mind, I’m an anarcho-communist, and not terribly familiar things like mutualism, so that may be different. I tend to view, as do (to my knowledge) most ancoms, communism and anarchism as synonyms. The difference is how we get to the end point, not the end point itself. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. We’ve had the Spanish anarchists, and some examples of societies like Madagascar, where there are villages and region that function in an anarchistic way, but True Anarchism™ couldn’t function in a single country/region. It needs to be international in it’s scope for all the same reasons communism needs to be international in it’s scope. Anarchist political methods can function at a smaller scale, but we can’t have a fully anarchist society until it’s global.

              Which all just means that I’m an anarchist because I prefer the methods to achieving the shared goal, not because I disagree on the goal itself, if that makes sense.

      • ProdigalFrog@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Realistically, it would look something like how the Anarchists organized society in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, or how Rojava is organizing today with communal federations. Anarchism sidesteps the inevitable authoritarian regime that various Marxist theories have by not installing a ‘temporary’ vanguard state that quickly becomes autocratic and dictatorial, they just jump straight to decentralizing power immediately by giving it to the people.

      • IDriveWhileTired@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, it is feasible. You just need to give people replicators and free living space, and they will eventually learn to use their skills to enrich the world we live in. And boldly go where no one has gone before.

    • lieuwex@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In what sense was it not an actual effort? Just because it quickly slid into non-marxism doesn’t say anything about the initial idea of the revolutionaries. Bakunin predicted exactly what would happen with Marxism, and it did every time.

      If you are against an authoritarian state, the only viable way to communism is to skip the dictatorship part directly and just have anarchism.

      • ReaganMcDonald@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, we did that with the Paris Commune. How many dead bodies dropped because they were unable to use authority to defend their actions?

    • Polydextrous@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There were no actual efforts to establish communism

      Period. Relying on the “temporary” government to relinquish their power is…foolish. If you’re building a system for the greater good, hierarchy will always undermine that goal. Unequal amounts of power does not a just system make.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you want to argue against that, fine by me. I have nothing against an honest duscussion. But this comment is neither funny nor smart.

        • Matricaria@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I was about 99% this was a joke because I thought nobody could be this stupid. I don’t argue with jokes, that’s pointless.

          • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            But that is no joke at all. It is what every honest historian will tell you. If you take communism as it was defined by Marx (not that this would be the best system or even what I would propse, parts of it maybe) then no society actually tried that.

    • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh here we go with “That wasn’t real communism!” as if any other communist state on this planet is any different.

          • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            No, because that’s not the topic of discussion. Not here to entertain projection and whataboutism as a defense mechanism of hurt feelings.

            • fishtacos@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Eh, it’s kinda both. Yes, it’s nice to stay on one topic like how we can make communism the best it can be and learn lessons of the past. But when people look at some of those decisions/theories and say “that sounds terrible, I’d rather keep what I have” then you really gotta cross-compare. America is only as well off as it is because of slavery, corruption, death and destruction. It’s just not death and destruction of their own people and land, so most American citizens don’t “see” that. Or if they do, it’s a “well, that sucks, we should do better” kind of thing, but lack real recognition that the system benefits them so much. As well, the capitalist autocracies have been way more deadly and authoritarian and corrupt than anything communist, and it’s important for people to learn about the differences.

              A: “Communism is authoritarian” B: “Wehll, sometimes, but capitalism is too, and it is MUCH worse” A: “Don’t commit whataboutism” B: “Uhhhh, but we have to compare systems to know which is better and which is worse…”

              Just IMHO.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean they violated some if tge main principles outlined by Marx, like the other states, who almost all followed the lenin-stalin-model, so yeah. Prove me wrong.

      • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        They are though. China, Vietnam and Cuba are all pretty drastically different and they are all communist countries.

          • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The functioning of their government is absolutely unequivocally communist. They have allowed some form of capital interests, which I would not consider communist in definition, but the government retains control over nearly all those interests and the plan they’ve put forward from the beginning is to renationalize industries as they reach a point of competitive development with the western world.

            • vinhill@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m far from an expert on communism. But the government, and especially a single person, retaining power over the state and economy is far from communism, it’s more authoritarian. Communism in it’s very base is the citizens owning the means of production, not the state owning those. This in no way is represented in China, where the state has a lot of power over the economy and owns parts of some companies, but there are still capitalists owning factories and workers working there.

            • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m going to preface this with saying I don’t support communism or centrally planned socialism, so this isn’t me handwaving things away. It’s just that this is a nuanced topic and definitions are important, and the red scare has sucessfully lied to most people about what these words mean.

              The government being in control of everything is not the sole defining feature of communism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production (business assets), typically through the government owning it all. Communism takes that a step further by removing currency and markets from the system and using some other system to determine how to create and allocate goods and services. And for the people to own the means of production through the government, they need to have an actual say in the government.

              Basically to have centrally-planned socialism or communism, you need the government owning all business assets in addition to something like a democracy or republic form of governmental policy. If you don’t have a governmental policy that is controlled by the people, then the people don’t own the means of production and by definition you don’t have socialism or communism. You have one of the various forms of autocracy/oligarchy/etc.

              The issue we see here with people conflating modern day China, the USSR, etc with communism is that the change in government started out as socialist or communist movements, but then got coopted by fascists who removed political agency from the people, but also decided to keep calling themselves communists. However, overthrowing a form of government and pretending you’re still that form of government doesn’t magically make it true. North Korea isn’t democratic or a republic just because the rulers call themselves it. Similarly, China’s government is defined by its actions: state capitalist and not communist.

      • kilinrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hey, I can think what happened in Eastern Europe was just authoritarian dictatorships, backed by Muscovite colonialism & branded as communism just the same as what happened in parts of South America was just authoritarian dictatorship, backed by American imperialism & branded as laissez-faire capitalism.

        Also I can think communism has never actually been tried, and that it’s functionally impossible (therefore people should stop advocating for it).

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This time without hierarchy wherever possible. And we’ll keep most of the capitalistic economy as is, just redistribute the wealth so that everybody is safe and happy. Cut the bullshit jobs, make produced goods more durable and sustainable, so that the last at least ten times as long, cut more jobs in producing, distribute the remaining work to all the people, everybody who wants to get a little extra can do this by working, most will. I certainly would still work even if i did not have to, even if there is no monetary benefit. Doing a job that is nice and that you like is fun, because you’re doing your part.

      • cryball@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Can’t critizise something that has never been tried! Also we already got a comment critizising capitalism as a counter argument :D

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I literally pissed a slow day at work away pointing out the many, many flaws in the USSR to a lemming whose primary response was LALALALA I CAN’t HEAR YOU, GO READ THIS BOOK

      There is definitely a cadre of extremely disillusioned and extremely ill informed users who think the USSR was legitimate sunshine and candy communism

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And that’s why we have barriers to entry stifling competition lobbied for by the big players in said industry? Insulin is only the price it is because the government enforces the patent that says pfizer is allowed to have a monopoly on it, if other people were able to produce and sell affordable generics pfizer would have to drop their price or go out of business, but if you try the government comes, kidnaps you, and if you resist kidnapping, kills you.

          Try to sell a product that the government decides you owe them money for: Weed? Jail. Moonshine? Jail. Weed in a legal state but didn’t break off the 50% protection money to the government? Jail. Unlicensed insulin? Jail. Drawing of a mouse too close to a famous one? Jail.

          The US has what is called crony capitalism, not free market capitalism. Free market capitalism economy is what the Agorists like SEKIII want (but they refuse to call capitalism arguing that “real capitalism” is crony capitalism and “free market economies” are not “capitalist” at all and is actually leftist in nature.)

          • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Crony capitalism is just capitalism. The agorist free market capitalism is just starting the whole thing over under the mistaken belief that it’ll end up different.

              • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I know you’re trying to use sarcasm, but communist countries don’t generally repeat the mistakes of other communist countries. They famously at least try to share knowledge openly with each other.

          • yA3xAKQMbq@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lol, what utter bullshit.

            Pfizer doesn’t have a monopoly on insulin, it’s primarily produced by Eli Lilly (who were the first), Novo Nordisk and Sanofi.

            „The government“ also doesn’t „enforce“ patents, companies have found a way to make small changes to drugs to keep them perpetually patented. The recent price drops of insulin in the US are the *result of government intervention *.

            Please do get lost with you Alex Jones r/conspiracy drivel, thx.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You mean the cheap kind you can get at walmart, or the fast acting stuff everyone complains about being expensive? I mean, I don’t think anyone is claiming that the cheap atuff is too expensive, they’re always talking about the fast acting kind or so they say, so that’s what I’m talking about too, since I was directly referencing people complaining about expensive insulin, you see.

              Nonetheless, though I may not be super up on which megacorporation holds patents for which drug, and in essence they’re all exactly the same to me since they operate the same way in terms of patents, the fact that corporation “A” holds the patent instead of corporation “B” is a nonfactor, just replace the name in your head. Hit f12 and edit it if you really lack the imagination to just insert the correct corporation and keep reading.

              The government doesn’t enforce patents, eh? Ok, so what specifically happens if you start selling shit patented by “a corporation of your choosing?” Pinkertons? Well maybe if we’re talking about 1800s Wells Fargo, or current WOTC, but that is rare. No unless I’m mistaken it’s usually “court” which unless I’m mistaken is part of “the judicial branch” of “our government.”

              Face it, the government and corporations being in bed is not only “a bad thing” but is just as much a fault of “the government” as “the corporations.” Hating one is only hating half the problem.

          • Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And that’s why we have barriers to entry stifling competition lobbied for by the big players in said industry?

            Yes. That’s how capitalism operates. There is nothing in capitalist system that prevents monopolies from happening, in fact they kind of encouraged. And patent system is as capitalist as it gets. It was born as an answer to a question “how do we collectively insure that companies can own everything they want to own”, and the government exists to enforce the rules that rich people and companies want to have (getting back to lobbying). If you get rid of the government, you will get cyberpunk corporate wars, and then when people will get tired of that, they will come up with the same government-like structure.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s how crony capitalism works, free market capitalism is free from such bounds by definition. Monopolies could also form without the government but they clearly form with the help of those government regulations allowing them to do so as well, see: basically the entire medical industry. We have the worst of both worlds, tbh either socialized healthcare or an end to the racketeering scheme we call the medical industry by freeing the market (things like removing drug patents to make the market competitive and lowering price, etc) would he better than this crony capitalist bullshit we have now. Patents are again antithetical to free market capitalism, that is literally part of what is referenced by “free” in the term. Proponents of free market capitalism ignore patent and IP laws entirely or think they should be limited to a short period (typically 15-20y with no renewal depends on who you talk to).

          • Tvkan@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            According to https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking for instance, there are 24 countries in the world with freer economy than USA.

            The right wing, climate change denying, Heritage Foundation is not a reliable source. That’s nowhere near an unbiased analysis, but an opinion piece. No one can seriously believe the US to be less “free market” than like half of western Europe.

            That’s like asking the North Korean government to create an index of democracy.

    • ciko22i3@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communism fails every time it is tried because it goes against human nature of constantly comparing yourself to others and trying to improve yourself. You will never do harder work if you can get the same reward for easier work, and you will look for other, less moral ways of getting the bigger reward.

      Communism sounds great but it will never work until we have unlimited resources and completely automated labour.

      • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nah, that’s just wrong. You can compare yourself in other ways than how much fake money you earn. Fun thing is: truly communistic society would mean easier work for most people.

        And communism does work in small scale enviroments. Families, cooperatives, tribes. Sometimes neighborhoods.

        This whole “Sounds great but won’t work” rhethoric is just what the ones that would loose their power in communsim want you to think. If you dig into it you will see, that there were and are a lot of efforts to discredit the idea.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s funny because I do easy work for a great paycheck yet we have a harder time hiring than in my previous job which didn’t pay as well and was harder.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m in my mid thirties, my current job (first time for this employer) is the best paid and offers the best conditions and is the easiest one I’ve ever worked and they need to give us a retention bonus so people don’t leave for another department.

            I’ll leave it at that so I don’t dox myself.

            Edit: Don’t know why people are downvoting? It’s an office job that requires a high-school diploma, I’ve worked physical jobs before that paid less and where we weren’t short staffed as we are in my current job. Happy?

            • Tavarin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can tell us the field of work, that wouldn’t Dox you to know it’s programing versus electrician or something.

        • ciko22i3@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They did attempt to be communist, but they failed like every other attempt will fail. Greed is basic human nature, and those who have it more than others will find a way to abuse the system, get in charge and ruin it.

  • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    147
    arrow-down
    64
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    7 out of 11 countries believe the end of the USSR harmed their countries rather than benefited them

    Reflecting back on the breakup of the Soviet Union that happened 22 years ago next week, residents in seven out of 11 countries that were part of the union are more likely to believe its collapse harmed their countries than benefited them. Only Azerbaijanis, Kazakhstanis, and Turkmens are more likely to see benefit than harm from the breakup. Georgians are divided.

    Hungary: 72% of Hungarians say they are worse off today economically than under communism

    A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country’s economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country’s switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary’s integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process.

    Romania: 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism

    The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied.

    Germany: more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR

    Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an “illegitimate state.” In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.

    28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime

    Roughly 28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime, according to a poll conducted by the polling institute SC&C and released Sunday.

    81% of Serbians believe they lived best in Yugoslavia

    A poll shows that as many as 81 per cent of Serbians believe they lived best in the former Yugoslavia -”during the time of socialism”.

    Majority of Russians

    The majority of Russians polled in a 2016 study said they would prefer living under the old Soviet Union and would like to see the socialist system and the Soviet state restored.


    The above memes are almost always made by Americans, whose brains are riddled with red scare brainworms and are completely devoid of any knowledge or understand of what the left thinks in Europe because Americans do not have a left.

  • LazaroFilm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    The US political spectrum is leaning so far to the right. A US left is a France center or moderate right. So what Americans consider communism is merely what French consider moderate leftist.

    • I’m French living in the US
    • voidMainVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, it’s basically “If you keep calling all of the stuff I like ‘communism’, then I guess that makes me a communist.”

    • Taleya@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hell even Obama was right wing to many countries.

      …this was before we all dove headfirst into facism as a trauma response

    • gxgx55@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but the meme refers to the communities on the internet that unironically go full tankie, praising Stalin and Mao.

      Worst of all, tankies tend to inflitrate sane leftist spaces and slowly transform them. I’ve witnessed it many times, and that just makes me think that Marxists-Leninists are just the most dominant form of leftism on the internet, which is horrible.

        • gxgx55@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t, but in this thread’s we see a simultaneous claim of “We aren’t tankies, of course Stalin and Mao are not good examples of communists” and “Eastern european people were better off under the USSR”. Of course, I don’t think the same people are making both claims, but just the fact that some people can claim the latter and not get collectively shunned is indicative of a huge problem in leftist spaces, it’s disgusting frankly. Tankies are significant force, at least partially representing leftism to everyone else.

      • Zozano@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think a lot of people give Mao a bad wrap.

        For what it’s worth, Stalin is a monster, and the state of China right now is repugnant.

        Mao didn’t intentionally lead tens of millions of people to starve in the same way Stalin did. Mao was trying to revolutionise agriculture (The Great Leap Forward) but didn’t understand the ecological and logistic principles required.

        I’m convinced his intentions were good, he just wasn’t educated enough to implement something like this.

  • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    94
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    1 year ago

    Communism isn’t the issue the same way Capitalism isn’t the issue, the issue is rich people abusing working class and poor people. Removing democracy from these systems just make them absolutely horrid in the long run. Also China isn’t communist it’s state capitalist dictatorship.

  • wagoner@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    A meme like this is what happens when you believe the GOP that doing anything to benefit regular people is communism.

  • Gray@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to “socialism”? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I’m a bit of a hypocrite here. I’ve been mostly telling people I’m a “social democrat” or that I support “capitalism with heavy regulations”. But even those words can get picked apart and don’t really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.

  • EnnuinerDog@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    How dare teenagers not become Neoliberals while growing up in a late capitalist hellscape where climate change can’t be taken seriously because it isn’t a profitable problem to solve.

  • CthulhuOnIce@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    comment section frustratingly filled with McCarthy-brained liberals who have never critically examined their preconceptions about communism

  • hare_ware@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Didn’t the USSR just do state capitalism, and not actual communism or socialism? And weren’t they also totalitarian & also not a democracy? Are people actually asking for what was happening in astern Europe or something else?

    • FluffyPotato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yup. Also shot the anarchists, that worked with them and wanted democracy, in the back of the head during a meeting, The USSR then also did imperialism in their neighboring countries, deported a ton of people from those countries to death camps in siberia and allied with the nazies dividing Europe in their treaty

      • salient_one@lemmy.villa-straylight.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Anarchists are the first victims of authoritarian regimes. The dictator goes for them first, even before their sworn enemies, e.g. fascists or, if it’s a fascist dictatorship, communists.

        • Volodymyr@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The story of ukrainian anarchist communist, Machno, is interesting in this resect. Bolsheviks treated his so well. Russian revolution, although started occasionally with good ideas, quickly revealed itself as authorithian russian nationist imperialism.

    • R0cket_M00se@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s kind of the point of horseshoe economics, “the people own the economy” is impossible to implement without an intermediate agency to actually oversee the day to day of said economy.

      What’s that entity? The government. Any conceptual type of non-state entity would just be governance in nature regardless of title, and therefore still essentially operate as “a state” if not the same state that the federal government exists as.

      Though as someone who works in modern IT I foresee the future of robotics and AGI allowing for the kind of economic automation that would make communism inevitable eventually as jobs are reduced over time in the course of the next hundred or two hundred years.

      • Eochaid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Though as someone who works in modern IT I foresee the future of robotics and AGI allowing for the kind of economic automation that would make communism inevitable eventually as jobs are reduced over time in the course of the next hundred or two hundred years.

        Yeah, I thought that too, but now that we’re getting some rudimentary functional AI and robotics, what we’re seeing is companies using it to save them money - basically automating work that would be done by highly paid specialists, contractors, or outside companies. And they are not investimg in it to automate low paid rote work because the human labor is cheap enough that a big automation investment only yields gains long term - and businesses have been focused on short term gains for the last few decades. So, automation, in the short term at least, is really just limiting our opportunities for more satisfying work.

        What’s more likely to happen in the short term is that the pressure to adopt new tools will fall on the worker. AI and robotics won’t take your job, but someone using them will.

        You talked about the long term, hundreds of years, and it’s difficult to speculate how our society would work then. But… work and money is a form of social control. There will be significant pressure as jobs disappear to ensure the populous is still working to earn something that the ruling class has more of. Nothing short of a looooonnnnnnng term political change or violent upheaval of power dynamics will change that. Now, is that possible in the time scale of hundreds on years? Maybe, but I find it hard to believe that those in power would easily give up the very thing that gives them their power.

    • vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Didn’t the USSR just do state capitalism, and not actual communism or socialism?

      The Soviet idea was that 1) if it’s state-owned, then it’s people-owned and not capitalism, 2) it’s people-owned, because USSR is a union of soviet republics, where soviet is a democratic (initially) entity, 3) it’s socialism, not communism, as we’ve not built that yet, 4) it’s still socialism as we use money to buy things and not receive them as we need automatically, as the planning precision doesn’t allow for this.

      (A soviet is initially like an elected body, where every member on level zero is elected by constituency, like certain factory’s workers or inhabitants of some street, as this thing was static in the USSR, or on every level above zero by an underlying level soviet ; the main difference between this and normal democracies is that those factory workers or that underlying soviet can vote anytime to recall and replace their representative, which turned out to make it more authoritarian all by itself ; well, also obviously these in fact decided nothing in the USSR anyway, the party structures did).

    • Volodymyr@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess that’s the best way put it I saw in this post. I’d just add that after growing up in soviet and postsoviet state, and later coming to western Europe, my first impression was that they somehow almost managed to build here what “communist” soviet party tried to build so unsuccessfully.

      Even Marx thought that path to communism is through capitalism, what soviet state did is something very different.

      • PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        if the government owns the economy (i.e. plans it) and the people don’t control the government (i.e. no or bad democracy), then it is state capitalism.

    • huge_clock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      The USSR was definitely communist. They called themselves communist, were inspired by communists and implemented communist policies.

        • ReaganMcDonald@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Finally someone understands. Read the DPRK’s constitution, and it makes perfect sense. They are ran by a working class party and you’re free to vote for outside parties if they represent your interests more. Free/cheap healthcare, education, and housing. Working abroad programs. Many religions are practiced, and you may learn English or Mandarin alongside Korean to boost your opportunities.

        • huge_clock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No because they are not inspired by democratic republicans and they do not have democratic republican policies. Read me whole comment next time.

          • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Critical thinking needs a bit of work there buddy. That’s exactly my point: the USSR did not have communist policies, it wasn’t even based on communism. It was an authoritarian state-capitalist regime which called itself socialist (not even communist), much like North Korea calls itself a democratic republic.

              • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                As a term, communist state is used by Western historians, political scientists, and media to refer to these countries. However, these states do not describe themselves as communist nor do they claim to have achieved communism, as it would constitute an oxymoron—they refer to themselves as socialist states that are in the process of constructing socialism.

    • Chokotoff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes, because there’s no other way to implement communism. They tried hard and it still didn’t work

    • Nerorero@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      In Germany the left leaning parties want that shit. It sucks. They side with Russia atm as well and a lot of them just have this odd nostalgia for the time

  • sweet@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    boomers destroyed the earth beyond all belief, poisoned everyone with sketchy ass chemicals, destroyed the economy more than once (twice in my life), most of us will NEVER own a home because the housed your grand pappy paid 100k for is now worth 2.5 million and average yearly wage is less than 30,000… among a million other things. The greed and entitlement is baffling, mix that in with delusional red scare propaganda that a ton of people fall for and yall mfers spending time defending all this insane shit.

    we effectively live in a corporate government where what the people want doesn’t matter alongside the million other ways we are lied to and exploited. Billionaires and trillionaires run the world and they keep pushing for “the next thing” like the metaverse, blockchain and going mars while most of us cant even afford to fucking eat. Suck it. I guarantee that you cant even define communism and point out how it differs from social policies even on a very basic fundamental level. Fuck dude

  • Kastelt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I honestly just want a system that

    1. Gets all of us out of this climate mess
    2. Gets rid of poverty
    3. Doesn’t create a global and national elite of rich people

    For a long time I’ve seen communism, as in: planned economy, and no ruling class (the latter the USSR failed to achieve, it seems) as the solution. But nowadays I don’t know. I don’t know if marxism in it’s original form is enough to explain society, and I don’t think anarchist communism, collectivism, mutualism whatever can work on a large scale. Social democracy doesn’t seem like it’s enough, either.

    • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Western politics already has a vehicle in which to accomplish your 3 bullet points called regulation. The problem is children in charge and the voters apathy to hold their feet to the fire.

      People should get mad, not at each other but at their “masters” that aren’t supposed to exist. The powers that be want us to argue amongst ourselves

      • cdf12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not children in charge, it’s old ass white guys who depend of screwing everyone over to maintain their standard of living.

        • DeanFogg@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Either way. Still arguing with ourselves. If we can agree there’s less to talk about and only action remains

        • nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Age and skin color especially don’t matter when you a corrupt politician taking corporate bribes.

    • rockstarpirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think fundamentally most people would agree with that. The problem with communism though is that it’s not just a staple of the USSR. There is something on the order of 48 countries that have experienced state-sponsored communism in relatively recent times and it has never once succeeded in achieving these goals but tends to exacerbate poverty, class division, and government oppression of human rights, if not resulting in completely failed states.

      Some will read this and assume I am advocating for capitalism. I am not. Asserting problems with communism does not imply capitalism is perfect or even good. But if we do choose to abandon capitalism, the wrong decision is to move to a system with a 100% failure rate of achieving its goals over dozens of historical attempts. As the meme suggests, many Eastern Europeans are old enough to have personal experience with those failures.

      Where communism can work well is on a smaller, voluntary scale. When people choose to get together and establish their own rules for pooling resources, small communities can sometimes live quite satisfactorily this way. But no, if we are willing to call capitalism a failure based on its history we have to be honest enough to say the same thing about state-sponsored communism.

      • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not quite sure how to reply to that, because you make some good points. I flatly disagree that communism can’t work. It’s like saying Capitalism couldn’t work because for a whole century the French revolution was failing before 1789. Which is not even the first humanity’s attempt for a capitalist system, but the first well known one. We still have ways to go and failed attempts to try to get it right.

        However, the most important thing in my eyes is to learn from the past. Being in a country that was surrounded by communism, tried, and was refused help from the then socialist states, I know very many people that still look back to those times with fondness. From my country and neighboring ones that were parts of the socialist block. But all those implementations had their problems and these same people would be the first to admit that. Our job is to go through all that history and judge it with clear heads, see where it went wrong and how or why, so in the next attempts we’ll fail in a different way, until we get it right. Similar to how every socioeconomically system did so far.

        I don’t care about Anarchy or Socialism or Trotskyism or whatever, as long as it gets us to the end goal of a classless system without economic or power elites that see us as data nodes to profit off. Each of those approaches has its pros and cons and there are many others as well.

        But saying it failed so we best move on, because the first handful of attempts went wrong is not going to bring any change whatsoever.

        • rockstarpirate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah I get you. But it’s important to realize that we’re talking about much more than a handful of attempts. I see the value in learning from history and iterating on processes to try and get better over time. But if we’re honestly striving for the best system for humanity, what we shouldn’t do is say, “I really want it to be communism so let’s just assume that must be the right answer and keep trying it over and over again until it works.” At some point you do have to be willing to try something new.

          It’s my opinion that communism has had more than a fair shot and has been eliminated from the running. But I am also not so crazy as to immediately disregard some new communist paradigm that theoretically works in some new way that is designed to fix the problems that continually appeared in communist systems historically. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen it presented yet. And it’s also not what these “western teenagers” (as the meme calls them) are advocating for. They use language and symbols characteristic of very specific brands of communism that were massive historical failures in terms of preserving human rights and eliminating poverty and class divisions.

          • Atheran@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I disagree about the part of enough attempts and fair share, but honestly, I don’t care much. Could very well be something completely different and as long as it kept the basis of no inequality, no ruling elite, free education and medical care and so on, I’d be in. I just haven’t found anything that does that even half convincingly.

            My belief is that similar to how back in the 18th century, they couldn’t see past the following system, namely capitalism, we can’t see and plan for past a classless system now, which for the moment is communism, regardless of the path there. That doesn’t mean that societal evolution will stop there.

      • Mayoman68@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another interesting point is whether we attribute the successes and failures of a state on it’s particular social, economic and political situation or it’s ideology as the root cause of anything. Most people, when they agree with an ideology, will attribute the good things to the ideology and the bad things to specific circumstances, and the opposite with ideologies they do not agree with. The more nationalist Americans will tell you that Cuba is poor because it is communist, and that Bush invaded Iraq either because he was corrupt or because he was promoting freedom. However there’s also the argument that Cuba is poor because it is sanctioned to hell by the US, and that Bush invaded Iraq because of American capitalist imperialism. Which one of these you agree with pretty much entirely depends on your ideological opinions rather than what actually happened, and as far as making a valid argument either one is at least a coherent point.

        The reality is that you have elements of both the fundamental ideology and the specific political circumstances in every social outcome you see. Which is an idea quite fatal to most of the rhetoric you see nowadays and part of why it’s impossible to have any political discussion with people you have fundamental disagreements with.

      • ██████████@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        😂😂😂

        yes vietnam no longer exhist indeed north vietnam never once succeeded

        consider reading a book and touching grass

        those who read know

        the largest economy in the world is a socialist state dedicated to working towards communism ⚒️🌍

        • SpamCamel@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s also an oppressive police state where huge portions of the population live in poverty and endure awful working conditions. Oh and they’re actively engaged in genocide against a minority ethnic group. But sure if we just ignore all the downsides it’s great.

        • rockstarpirate@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you must have inferred something from my comment that I didn’t actually say. I didn’t say every communist country ceases to exist. I also didn’t say that communism can’t generate a large economy.

          What I said was that it has a 100% failure rate of achieving its goals, where those goals are economic equality, and elimination of poverty and class divisions. Most open pro-communists today have an additional goal of increasing access to basic human rights which communism has historically failed at as well. I did mention that some communist states have failed outright.

          In the case of China, which you alluded to, note that China deliberately weakened their communism in the 90s as part of a series of economic reforms that introduced capitalist principles designed to stimulate growth. Specifically, agriculture was de-collectivized, Chinese business were opened to foreign investment, permission was granted for entrepreneurs to start businesses, state-owned industries were privatized, and many price controls were removed. By 2005, the private sector was responsible for 70% of China’s GDP. There is no reason to believe that China’s economy would be anywhere near as large as it is today absent these reforms.

          But is that what you personally want out of your system? A large economy? Is that what matters most?

        • 4ce@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In what world is a country with billionaires and an autocratic ruling class in which the workers decidedly do not control the means of production, “socialist”?

    • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maximum Wealth should be set to 10 million. At that point you’ve won at wealth and every penny after that should go to someone else.

      • noodle@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a bit of an arbitrary figure. Also wealth isn’t really money as much as it is things.

        Take a house, for example. You only really need one. The monetary value of the house depends on a few factors, but it’s primary value is that it gives you shelter. It probably fluctuates in monetary value but the actual value doesn’t change. If you cap wealth based on monetary value, how do you deal with homes in different places that are valued differently? I think it’s going to be more complicated than it seels at first glance.

        Assuming you mean dollars, since everyone on the internet is American. 10mil seems like a lot all together. But if you had to feed your entire family for the rest of your life on 10mil you might struggle, depending on where you live.

        Maybe you mean 10mil income per year and not overall wealth. That’s different, but I can understand this. A progressive tax system could impose a cap of sorts but tax avoidance (the legal kind) would render it useless.

        I don’t have any answers, just felt like continuing the thought train.

        • Ddhuud@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          1st, don’t read to deep into this, It’s not even a pipe dream is a barely thought that crossed my mind but ain’t smart enough to even process in any meaningful way, but thought it would be ok to vomit here.

          I mean total wealth including houses, cars, personal belongings, clothes, groceries, bank accounts, shares at some company, pocket change, everything. Yes, I was thinking dollars. It could be per person. And yes, it’s a VERY arbitrary number, but it could be adjusted.

          It would be like a rolling cap, if you’re at the limit, you could buy food, and after you eat it, that expended budget would be available for you to earn more money again.

        • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What do you mean “now what?” lol. Assuming an American-centric or Euro-centric point of view, they would use their extremely expensive military armaments that can’t be purchased in large quantities by private organizations, and crush the rebellion. The government is the government because they have a monopoly on violence.

          I mean, really. Their money is in banks subject to the oversight of the countries they’re trying to raise an army against. People may be relatively cheap, but they still need to be paid quite a bit to attempt to fight the military head on. Freeze their accounts and they’re screwed. Musk’s entire fortune isn’t even a single years worth of funding for the US military, and even if all the billionaires pooled their money it would take years to accumulate the excess hardware that is allowed to be sold and then train their PMCs on hardware. Years that they wouldn’t have if a bill was passed to cap wealth inequality.

          We may yet reach the corporate dystopia where businesses can directly challenge governments, but we’re not quite there yet. At least not in the first world. Russia may have shot itself in its confusion, but that’s because the rich already are the government there.

          • AlgeriaWorblebot@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Who is in government with rank enough to authorise this violence, but doesn’t have the above-$10M to lose?

            • Ryantific_theory@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              To authorize repelling a slowly gathering military coup? That’s an incredibly low bar to commit treason, since honestly, even at the highest levels military bureaucrats aren’t going to be much wealthier than 10 mil. Unlike Congress, there’s a much closer eye kept on the finances of military leaders because they’re paranoid about foreign nations bribing them. It’s physical national security, which is one of the few areas that money doesn’t hold absolute power.

              Even if they stood to lose a few million, there are plenty of genuine patriots, as well as people smart enough to realize that overthrowing the government by force does not mean the law instigating it gets repealed, but that the entire legal structure of the United States is no longer functioning. That’s fifty different militias reporting to states, Naval, Army, and Marine branches with hundreds of billions of dollars in ordinance that’s explicitly empowered to not follow unethical or illegal orders. It’d be a disaster for the coup throwers unless they managed a movie villain level simultaneous takeover of the Pentagon.

              I’m not saying a coup is impossible, but the idea of rich people successfully overthrowing the American government by “hiring an army” is so cursed to failure that I almost don’t know where to even start. Could they cause unprecedented chaos and potentially kill a large portion of the government? Possibly. Could they succeed? Absolutely not.

              Also, this whole chain completely ignores the fact that Congress would never set the cap at 10 million. I doubt they’d set it at a hundred million. My bet would be one billion, where it wouldn’t actually affect any of them. Were they to actually pass a 10 million dollar cap, the world would be such a different place that we wouldn’t need to worry about a handful of grumpy generals inciting treason.

    • Imgonnatrythis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You need to ask for a little more or you’ll get all that but at the price of a corrupt and abusive regime.

    • HerbalGamer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No one said Marxism was all done and finished out of the box… feel free to workshop it as needed since it’s barely been attempted to put into practice at all.

    • SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A really good perk in Eastern Europe is that the brief period of communism flattened inequality and nationalised all infrastructure, and both have been kept under democracy and capitalism. Which means that those countries now kinda have the best of both worlds. Although with the snowballing of wealth that is inevitable under capitalism (unless regulated), it is a question of if, and not when, that starts to change.

    • stingpie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you know of a community to discuss this? I feel like people stop criticizing economic systems once they benefit from it, and so people just default to communism or capitalism without actually considering the game theory behind it all.

    • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There is no such thing as no ruling class, and generally, anyone who sells you that is aiming to become the ruling class themselves. In the best case scenario, they want to be a benevolent dictator, and we might have seen a few people get close to that over the course of history but no benevolent dictatorship lasts longer than two generations and many fail even sooner than that. In the worst case, they are just riding on this political train and aim to be a not so benevolent dictator themselves.

      Any system that does not account for human nature and build an incentive structure that guarantees the maximum possible equality/equity while assuming everyone involved is selfish is a system that’s ill suited for humanity. And if you force an ill-suited system, someone will inevitably swoop in and use it for their personal gains. Like as bad as our current system is with wealth inequality, the soviet system had an even slimmer and richer elite, they just hid it well.

      I agree with all of your goals, but we need to do this the smart way, and that involves setting the priority exactly as your list goes and actually accounting for how people behave. The result might not be perfect, but we can do better than we do currently, I think that should be the goal rather than going for perfection and falling for snake oil on the way.

    • icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I seriously believe we must build an A.I. to replace human leadership since we proved time and time again that we are corruptible, and that when that happens you start getting your poor and elite classes and rampaging exploitation of resources and its refusal to imorove to better technologies and processes (ie oil companies). We need something avobe humans to administer resources and solve politics since we just made both into ridiculous games that are alreaddy fixed so that everybody , exept those that a where winning already, loosses. I believe that the survival of the human race hinges on this.

        • icepuncher69@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I think that such A.I. should be build with the principles of sustainability of resources, the preseevation of human and animal life inluding but not limited to mental health, phisical health, fullfilment, and perception of freedoom. When it comes to penalties while i would like to get rid of any type of penal system i understeand its nececity due to people being people, so i would like for that system to focus on rehabilyitation rather than punishment as long as its possible and if not then just on keeping bad actors from causing any more harm into society. It should distribute resources to the human populance according to their necesities when it comes to basic needs being housing, energy, plumbing, food, medical suplies and services, clothing, transport, entertainment, social fulfilment, etc. when it comes to other things like nicer furniture, software, specialiced tools or anything on the frivolous nature or customisation then it shouldnt be a problem asking the a.i. as long as requests are reasonable since resources should be exploited sustainably enough so that this tyoes of needs could be fullfiled, like what i mean is “i whant a wooden table like this design i found” would be fullfilable request and not " i want a chair that looks like this made out of plutonium" since plutonium is toxic and should be used with care and only for cientific and energy producing porpuses. It should have as a goal to automate as much labor as posible, from agriculture, metallurgy, transport,etc. all the way to accounting, administration, executive decisions, software design, and even science, in the way as to research technologies and other fields for the benefith of humanity be it medical, technological or even space travel, all of this would leave humans to pursue more recreative activities like self fullfilment, socialising, pursuing artistic endeavours like music, painting, literature, cooking, plastical arts, teather (traditional or movies) and cientific research and studying, or just living it with their loved ones, friends or alone in the woods, if anyone whants to labor because they hate themselves (i mean in an ironic way) then they very much can. Also while it would sound bad, it should have control over all weapon and defence systems in the world and have the ability to create more if the need arises and be able to operate them at discretion in case of an external attack on humanity. It should also be able to better itself and self preserve and be abble to feel love for humanity but in a good way so that it doesnt turn against us. Look what im proposing is that we create god pretty much since its the only way we are gonna survive global warming and end war between ourselves for ever. But since your comment is givving me the vibes of being in a condecending manner in the: “AHA GOTH YA DAM LIB” sence, i dont think you are gonna read any of this and if you do you are probably gonna argue that i didnt tell you exactly step by step how to build an A.I. overlod so to that i tell ya of course i wouldnt because i dont know how since im just some dumb dumb on the internet, and while i would like to work building A.I. thats kinda far away from me at this point in my life. And if the down to upvote ratio on my original comment and your response is telling of anything, then its probably gonna validate any point you are gonna trow against mine since im the unpopular one and every one is gonna be able to rule me out as some jerk with a wrong opinion so have fun with that i guess.

          Sorry for bad english.

          • Zyansheep@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            i dont think you are gonna read any of this

            THINK AGAIN YA DAM LIB XD

            In all seriousness though, I can understand your desire for utopia and for technology to solve all our problems (I desire those things too!), but I think people generally view those two desires as naive. The world’s problems usually don’t have simple solutions, AI is still somewhat of a new area of research with its own potential dangers, and putting all your stock into AI solving our problems ignores the very real solutions that could be implemented sooner rather than later.

            But don’t beat yourself up too much over meaningless internet points, learn about what you’re interested in more! If AI is your cup of tea and you want to learn more about the potential issues with creating super powerful AI, I can strongly recommend the channel “Robert Moses AI Safety”. Particularly his videos about The Orthogonality Thesis and Mesa-Optimizers.

        • b3nsn0w@pricefield.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          that’s a question for the scientists to answer, we just have to watch their incentive structures and verify that they’re doing their peer review

  • psilocybin@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Top: Filthy rich capitalists and Boomers that lick up their cool aid

    Bottom: Global South that produces both their wealth

    Blocking you I don’t want another reddit experience