this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2023
-20 points (32.8% liked)

Communism

394 readers
1 users here now

Discussion Community for fellow Marxist-Leninists and other Marxists.

Rules for /c/communism

Rules that visitors must follow to participate. May be used as reasons to report or ban.

  1. No non-marxists

This subreddit is here to facilitate discussion between marxists.

There are other communities aimed at helping along new communists. This community isn't here to convert naysayers to marxism.

If you are a member of the police, armed forces, or any other part of the repressive state apparatus of capitalist nations, you will be banned.

  1. No oppressive language

Do not attempt to justify your use of oppressive language.

Doing this will almost assuredly result in a ban. Accept the criticism in a principled manner, edit your post or comment accordingly, and move on, learning from your mistake.

We believe that speech, like everything else, has a class character, and that some speech can be oppressive. This is why speech that is patriarchal, white supremacist, cissupremacist, homophobic, ableist, or otherwise oppressive is banned.

TERF is not a slur.

  1. No low quality or off-topic posts

Posts that are low-effort or otherwise irrelevant will be removed.

This is not a place to engage in meta-drama or discuss random reactionaries on lemmy or anywhere else.

This includes memes and circlejerking.

This includes most images, such as random books or memorabilia you found.

We ask that amerikan posters refrain from posting about US bourgeois politics. The rest of the world really doesn’t care that much.

  1. No basic questions about marxism

Posts asking entry-level questions will be removed.

Questions like “What is Maoism?” or “Why do Stalinists believe what they do?” will be removed, as they are not the focus on this forum.

  1. No sectarianism

Marxists of all tendencies are welcome here.

Refrain from sectarianism, defined here as unprincipled criticism. Posts trash-talking a certain tendency or marxist figure will be removed. Circlejerking, throwing insults around, and other pettiness is unacceptable.

If criticisms must be made, make them in a principled manner, applying Marxist analysis.

The goal of this subreddit is the accretion of theory and knowledge and the promotion of quality discussion and criticism.

Check out ProleWiki for a communist wikipedia.

Communism study guide

bottombanner

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

My reply is that yes, it was a top-down mistake, government policy was a major factor compounding the famine (the CPC even admits it) and nothing like that has happened in the many decades since, demonstrating the ability of the government and the broader movement to learn from mistakes and avoid repeating them. As some other replies pointed out, their history of regular famines has stopped entirely since the Three Year Great Famine, so they have clearly learned, improved and overcome a major hunger issue in a country with huge food demands.

[–] Lightsong 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What about certain square? Will the government ever admit it?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What about certain square? Will the government ever admit it?

Nisour square? I think the U$ is glad it happened.

[–] Lightsong 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Thagthebarbarian 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fascist Authoritarianism is a form of government and communism is an economic system, communism has been used as a carrot dangle by corrupt fascist authoritarian governments many times but has nothing to do with communism itself, and even so fascist capitalism has caused way more far reaching harm than fascist communism has

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fascist Authoritarianism is a form of government and communism is an economic system, communism has been used as a carrot dangle by corrupt fascist authoritarian governments many times but has nothing to do with communism itself, and even so fascist capitalism has caused way more far reaching harm than fascist communism has.

Can you define "authoritarian" as you use it here?

Also, what the fuck are you even trying to say here?

[–] ydieb 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's the authoritarianism that makes these governments bad, not the type of economic system.

You need to ensure a good democracy, regardless of economic policy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's the authoritarianism that makes these governments bad, not the type of economic system.

You need to ensure a good democracy, regardless of economic policy.

Alright, thanks for helping me understand your argument.

What do you mean by authoritarian?

[–] ydieb 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The opposite of democratic. It's a gradient. The people of a nation either has equal influence on how the nation is run, you have something in between or a very small minority has all the power.

The extreme where everyone have equal influence (impossible in reality) is perfect democracy. The extreme where a single person has all the influence, is an perfect authoritarian. Then you draw rough lines at points where the democracy is as good as you can possibly get, a flawed democracy, authoritarianism light, etc, depending on how unequal the influence is between people.

Also, I am not the one who you originally replied to.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The opposite of democratic. It's a gradient. The people of a nation either has equal influence on how the nation is run, you have something in between or a very small minority has all the power.

Where are you getting this definition from? It doesn't match what I've seen.

The extreme where everyone have equal influence (impossible in reality) is perfect democracy. The extreme where a single person has all the influence, is an perfect authoritarian. Then you draw rough lines at points where the democracy is as good as you can possibly get, a flawed democracy, authoritarianism light, etc, depending on how unequal the influence is between people.

I'm not clear on how you're determining which flawed political project is "as good as you can possibly get". Is there some non-authoritarian political project you support? If not, is there a level of authoritarianism you find acceptable?

[–] ydieb 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are trying to be way too specific in your counter questions for it to ever be meaningful. A better question would be, why isn't it possible to get a perfect democracy.

The answer is simple, if you have any influence over another person, it's already not perfect. As in a well spoken person at any workplace can voice their support for certain policies and create a higher influence for some stated ideas than a person being silent.

Your final question does not make sense. The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions. Forced transparency for people in power for example increases democracy, nice, then we do it.

I have not stated any specifics on what constitutes what to what degree, I only defined the entire solution space. So it's no wonder it's not clear.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You are trying to be way too specific in your counter questions for it to ever be meaningful. A better question would be, why isn't it possible to get a perfect democracy.

I'm trying to use the specific questions as a rhetorical device, so that you can't avoid defending your position with a vague out like this:

I have not stated any specifics on what constitutes what to what degree, I only defined the entire solution space. So it's no wonder it's not clear.


Your final question does not make sense. The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions. Forced transparency for people in power for example increases democracy, nice, then we do.

I'm trying to get you to argue for the political system you support. I'm frankly not very clear on your explanation of an authoritarian gradient, but it's very common for "anti-authoritarians" to support a wide range of things that are very authoritarian.

I'd like to highlight one bit you said:

The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions.

This is basically the goal of the political philosophy of Marxism-leninism. Like, idk if we have much to argue about if that's your goal.

[–] ydieb 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m trying to use the specific questions as a rhetorical device, so that you can’t avoid defending your position with a vague out like this:

I can't avoid defending my position? I havent stated my position... How can you attack something I havent even stated. I just stated the only possible solutionspace which is valid regardless of position. Go watch Rules for Rulers by CGPgrey, it gives a better description than what I can.

This is basically the goal of the political philosophy of Marxism-leninism. Like, idk if we have much to argue about if that’s your goal.

What are you talking about? I have absolutly no idea what "Marxism-leninism" is, so this label means nothing to me. The possible combinations of political policies is WAY larger than the total combinations of a list of political philosophists.. So trying to collapse it any position into these few labels is just crude.

You state "but it’s very common for “anti-authoritarians” to support a wide range of things that are very authoritarian" and then point at my "The point is to try to find more and more democratic systems regardless of initial conditions". You are literally saying that trying to make society more democratic is authoritarian. There is absolutly no logic to this and you need to really clear up your ideas, cause and effect, because that does not compute in any universe.

So I agree, using a math metaphore, if we are discussion any solution, but you have made up your own axioms, then you can never get a good understanding, because your priors are incompatible with eachother.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I can't avoid defending my position? I havent stated my position... How can you attack something I havent even stated. I just stated the only possible solutionspace which is valid regardless of position. Go watch Rules for Rulers by CGPgrey, it gives a better description than what I can.

You clearly hold a position, otherwise we wouldn't be here going back and forth. You're going to have to submit to the mortifying ordeal of being known. You can't argue against something, without arguing for something. What are you arguing for? Is your position (as I've assumed) that authoritarian government is bad?

I'm not going to watch your video. You need to make your arguments for yourself. No one else can.

I have absolutly no idea what "Marxism-leninism" is, so this label means nothing to me.

Marxism-leninism is the dominant communist tendency in the world, and the tendency of the Lemmygrad instance this post is in.

It's not weird that you're not familiar with it as such; education in the West is super anti-communist.

You are literally saying that trying to make society more democratic is authoritarian.

Yes. That's my point! Marxism-leninists hold authoritarian (here I'm using it to mean "the state monopoly on violence" or "the oppressive power of the state") means as a necessary tool.

You can't seize the means of production without fighting the owners for it (a revolution) and you can't hold onto that means of production without continuing to defend against capitalism/the owner class. Once that class contradiction has been removed (by oppressing the bourgeoisie out of existence), and once foreign capital isn't fighting for control of your society. You can drop the use of state oppressive power - because it's not a tool you need anymore!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Holy shit, bro actually linked CPG Grey as a source. The dude notorious for making videos based on a single book, and deliberately ignoring criticism of that book when making his videos. The video in question splits "rulers" into "democratic rulers" and "authoritarians" and makes no attempt to actually define these terms. Essentially, it argues that a ruler has a certain number of "keys" that they need to keep happy in order to stay in power (the people, the military etc.) and that democracies are democracies and authoritarian dictatorships are authoritarian dictatorships and one cannot be halfway between them lest it collapse or something. Dude is the epitome of the smug reddit intellectual who reads a single source and believes themselves to be an expert on a topic they didn't know existed 5 minutes ago. Only difference is Grey makes videos rather than reddit posts.

If that isn't enough, he also said that the Monarchy in the UK shouldn't be abolished because of "tourism." Yeah.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks for explaining the video! I'm now very happy I didn't watch it 😄

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's not very long, so it wouldn't be a huge waste of time, but it does the standard "lib theory" thing of simplifying everything into binaries to the point of meaninglessness, then trying to retrofit reality onto their binary. It's worth a watch if only to see how this stuff looks when it is presented in a "slick" sort of way, and is superficially convincing, but only to those that agree with the core premise that societies can be split into "dictatorships" and "democracies."

[–] deafboy 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If an economic system can only be implemented by authoritarian regieme on such a large scale, is it wise to separate them?

[–] ydieb 1 points 1 year ago

If not, no. I really do not believe that is the case however. I personally think the ussr was as communistic as Democratic Republic of the Congo is democratic.

If you have some authoritarian group at the top going, one for us, one for the people, one for us, one for the people. It's not communism.

I personally think capitalism, socialism, communism, etc are just tools. And as all tools, you apply the right tool for the job.

The value gained from national resources for example is definitely something that should be shared equally between the people. What price you want to set for hobby wood working projects you do in your spare time should be purely up to you and a buyer.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago

Yeah, but it was the last famine china has had. With over 1800 recorded.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 years ago

Despite the damage and death caused to humanity and the sad extinction of multiple bird species, Mao didn't come up with the sparrow campaign out of nowhere. Scientists genuinely believed they were a disease/parasite vector. Its no different from how countries today cull populations of pest species, inoculate animals that spread disease, and control animal populations during disease and hunting seasons.

I always say that for those in a position of power, its better to do something than to do nothing. Mao and the scientific community didn't have the full picture and couldn't see the extent of all the potential consequences, the goals were good, and the communist party and scientific community took steps to mitigate and learn from mistakes.

Neoliberals Getting mad at Mao for allegedly killing millions (which Monthly Review expresses serious doubt over) and blaming communism and mao is like getting mad at early humans burning themselves to death when they first tried to use fire to cook food or keep themselves warm.

load more comments
view more: next ›