this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
262 points (89.5% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27240 readers
1980 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Someone please correct me if I am misunderstaning or mischaracterizing this ideology:

From my limited understanding (because enthusiastic support for mass executions of anti-communists caused me to totally abandon it as a viable ideology) Lenin posited that it was necessary to violently rid the world of capitalist tendencies by force in order to protect the slow transition to the collectivist utopia he envisioned. This is my biggest problem with Marxism....or perhaps the brand of Marxism that has been adopted.

My background: I consider myself a libertarian socialist at the moment. I wholeheartedly agree that capitalism will kill our planet but I am not willing to support an autoritarian regime that promises to execute or imprison its critics for life (which both the US and China do ALL THE TIME). From my limited understanding, Marx didn't start there but was "radicalized" into firmly believing that the only way to get capitalists to go along with his plan is to eliminate them from society. The authoritarian behaviour reportedly came about from a very real need to prevent capitalists from meddling in order to protect their consumer ideology throughout the world.

If I am wrong, the people on hexbear have also misunderstood it. They believe that the only way to the utopia they want is through China's authoritarian methods. Their support for China is about as pervasive there as lemmy.world's support for DLC style neoliberal globalism.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I consider myself a libertarian socialist at the moment.

I believe you mean anarchist when you say “libertarian socialist.”

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

There are some important distinctions in my own ideology that prevent me from characterizing myself as an outright anarchist. For one, I do believe in the rule of law (to a certain extent in that I can scarcely imagine a fully anarchist society where murder and robberies are not rampant).

I also believe in state-funded fire departments, educational systems (with controls built in to prevent ideological brainwashing), roads, utilities, etc. So, I stop short of calling myself a Democratic Socialist because I think that that ideology is fraught with capitalist apologia (and actual sheepdogging for the capitalist class as perpetrated by AOC and Bernie as of late). But I am certainly not an Anarchist in the traditional sense of that word.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Yeah, if you still want a state you’re not an anarchist. And also if you believe a state either prevents violence or that people can’t behave themselves without one.

[–] demesisx@infosec.pub 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think on a small scale, communities are self-governing and anarchism can work well.
I have seen evidence of this.

In my current understanding of this admittedly SUPER complex topic, the problem perhaps lies in the overpopulation by way of capitalist expansion.

It feels (if you won't shame for attempting to take a stab in the dark at a reason) like at the scale of modern society, community policing can lead to an uptick in crime.

I have seen it in VT, CA, OR, and other places where this transition to a less punitive society is taking place. Ideologically, I actually wish for a society like that...but then I go to Brattleboro VT and get robbed at gunpoint by some guy who has been released from jail 2 times this month. I agree that ACAB. But then, I also want peace and I don't want to have to fear for my safety when what we asked for is given to us.

I wish I had an answer...frankly, I have a hard time coming to terms with the real-world implementations of some of my ideas like this one. I want to eliminate the disgusting white supremacist police...but I also want to prevent Proud Boys from murdering me.

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think it's a belief that a state prevents violence so much as it is a belief that you cannot address violence when it occurs without some form of state.

Let's say someone is raped in an anarchist society. What are your options of redress, short of simply lynching the perpetrator?

Any form of court, law, jail, etc all have "the state" as a prerequisite.

In either system the violence happens regardless. There is no preventing it. The question is, is "the state" a requirement to properly address that violence when it occurs?

[–] meowMix2525@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hold on, if the state can't prevent violence then what is the point of addressing it? Just trying to get your thinking straight, seems a bit paradoxical to me.

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

We're overloading terms here a bit. When I say "a state cannot prevent violence," it might be better phrased as "ALL violence."

Of course the state can prevent some violence. I don't think anyone would argue against that? If the state imprisons or kills a serial rapist, they have prevented that person from committing future violence, no?