I am from Eastern Europe and I share this sentiment when I see anyone from the West defending communism. The issue is complicated but, to put it bluntly:

No, Timothy, communism didn't fail in Eastern Europe because it was implemented wrongly. This is a very complicated topic but the tldr summary is "It is a broken idea, it did not work and it will never work. The natural and logical outcome of any attempt at Marxism is a bloodbath followed by autocracy."

That being said, communism isn't the only way to achieve a more equitable society. You have social democracy (in Lennin's words - communism's greatest adversary); organized labour movements; collectivist anarchism; communitariasm, etc.

Communism, as applied in the 20th century, violently fought against or oppressed all of these movements and is incompatible with any of them.

Not to mention that in most countries nowadays orthodox communists have been hugely discredited for excusing the Russian war of annihilation against the Ukrainian people.

In conclusion, if you live in the USA or Western Europe and you are unhappy with how corporate greed has ruined society, don't look to communism for answers. There are many other proposed solutions out there - go and research these. Communism is very well known, which makes it easily accessible to people who want change - but it is never, ever the solution.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] DytallixB@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

No communism, but socialism yes.

And yes, I am from east Europe

[–] PASAQUALIA@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago

It's funny because if you look at living standards in eastern Europe during communism's peak they were wayyy better than they are now

[–] onionbaggage@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (18 children)

Well we're not praising fascism and corruption.

load more comments (18 replies)

[–] thevoyagekayaking@lemmy.nz 0 points 2 years ago

Oh man, Lemmygrad will not like this one bit.

[–] CthulhuOnIce@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I guess I just really don't understand the draw. Communism is a nice thought, until actual people are involved. People are corruptible, which is why communism is seen as utopian. It's an ideal that only works under perfect circumstances.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I guess I just really don’t understand the draw. ~~Communism~~Capitalism is a nice thought, until actual people are involved. People are corruptible, which is why ~~communism~~capitalism is seen as utopian. It’s an ideal that only works under perfect circumstances.

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yes, I don't disagree, except far more people benefit from our form of capitalism, and you don't see the death numbers you do from the absolute rule that communism demands.

This isn't to say there isn't any death due to capitalism. Or any strife, just certainly not on the same scale. I would say out biggest death toll comes at the hands of our military-industrial-complex being capitolistic.

The problem is, there's nothing better yet.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Add up chattel slavery, Trail of Tears, proxy wars, not-so-proxy wars, the general condition of the M-I-C you've mentioned, the general plight of the Global South, etc etc etc, and get back to me. I'm not sure the advantage is so definitive as you assert. "Externalities", the economists call them.

[–] OceanSoap@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

It 100% does not even come close. Not saying those deaths weren't terrible or unavoidable, absolutely not.

But also, you can't blame a capitolistic society for trail of tears or any other mass genocide that came before that. We didn't become capitolistic until 10 years after Trail of Tears ended.

Edit to add: granted, that doesn't say much about how Native Americans were treated post TOT. Though, it's certainly through capitalism that Indian casinos have become so successful. 245 tribes own casinos today, all of which rake in the funds.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] varzaman@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago

Lol half the comments are “idk what you’re talking about”. A good chunk are proving OP right, and the rest is America hate.

Exactly like on Reddit. Literally isn’t any different here.

[–] Wisi_eu@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Define communism.

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

no one can, not even those who advocate for it. (aside from "not that thing that was repeatedly tried and failed")

[–] nachtigall@feddit.de 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.

from Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels.

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And what would be those conditions?

[–] phthalocyanin@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

common ownership and control of the means of production in a classless moneyless stateless society governed via collective mutual determination or similar horizontal system of power.

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

oh, i see, makes sense then why it was never tried. how are we going to have a society without a state to govern it? (i mean not to concern troll here, if a solution can be created for this that would be genuinely interesting, but for example that council the soviets created a century ago was clearly a state)

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I love how you just keep flaunting your ignorance here. Communists aren't imbeciles who think that you can simply snap your fingers and abolish the state, they recognize the need for a transitional socialist period from the current system to a communist one.

[–] b3nsn0w@pricefield.org 0 points 2 years ago (9 children)

and how do you wish to avoid that the leaders of said transitional socialist period just cling to power?

as someone who has to live in the aftermath of one of those "transitional socialist periods" that predictably went nowhere and just broke the country's spirit completely, i'm really damn curious. we are not talking about hypotheticals here.

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because the single only way to do communism is how the UdSSR did it, there's no other way.

And of course it's only possible to either agree with the whole of a specific ideology, or none of it. There's no "good parts of communism" or "bad parts of capitalism" it's only ever all good or all bad.

Politics is the mind-killer.

[–] Spinnyl@lemmy.today 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because the single only way to do communism is how the UdSSR did it, there's no other way.

It is, because one bad apple spoils the bunch if you don't send them to gulags. Communism on a large scale is not self stabilizing unless everyone is ideologically 100% onboard.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But sending people to gulags is not the only way to ensure ideological consistency.

[–] Spinnyl@lemmy.today 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is. Education would not be sufficient for that unless you can program people with chips in their heads.

You then get a few people who produce something that is desirable and rare, start exchanging it for favors and you're on your way to a systemic collapse.

[–] Azzu@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago

Is really the only punishment you can think of slavery?

load more comments