You must log in or register to comment.
The soviet union was authoritarian state capitalist (as opposed to market-capitalist). It just called itself communist, even though the Soviets (worker’s councils) were suborned to the party very rapidly.
Inform me about countries that have implemented communism and weren’t / didn’t turn out to be heavily oppressive.
They literally all copied the soviet union’s homework (Marxist-Leninism), there are other theories that haven’t had the chance to be tried. Like Council Communsim, Syndicalism, Libertarian Communism, Anarchism, etc. The failure of Marxist-Leninist countries proves Marxist-Leninism doesn’t work. It doesn’t prove that communism doesn’t work
The problem is: who is willing to bet their country on an experimental system that could turn out better but could also turn in a totalitarian system?
Pretty much every revolution in history is that gamble. Plenty of times capitalist democracies have fallen to totalitarianism.
I guess, my current situation is just not bad enough, to want a revolution.
But if one of the worse places in this world is gonna implementiert kommunism in a good way, I’ll be there and sign up for it.
The Rojava Revolution in Syria, and the Zapatistas in Mexico seem to be promising. Not saying you should sign up for them or anything lol. But they are certainly worth looking at and learning from. Communism is experimental, and it’s important to look at attempts at it and learn from their mistakes and successes.
Hmm thank you for your detailed info. And which communism would you perhaps try it out on a country scale?
I’m an anarcho-communist. I know response to that is you don’t think it’d work on a country scale because people believe you need a government to organize a national system. Syndicalism would be the best, or council communism. Ultimately I think they too run too much of a risk of corruption and totalitarianism, hence why I’m an anarchist. But I do think they’d be less prone to it than any authoritarian communism or even the capitalist systems we have now due to their decentralized nature
You have seen completely through me, but I didn’t mean to address that part. Every system has its flaws, and it defeats the purpose of my intention to you. I deeply respect that you responded to me (especially since you’re all put together with tankies usually, thus getting an awful rep automatically), I’m just curious about people’s reasons for choosing ideologies that aren’t the norm usually because there’s probably a right reason there. Thank you for this info again! :3
I want a system that provides for the people who make it function. And I see that communism, if used in a centralized government, gives too much power to the politicians. It’s a breeding ground for corruption and totalitarianism.
So to me the logical answer to that is have as decentralized a government as possible. And I think, if given the chance, people can and will organize themselves without the need of managers, bosses, or politicians. But it has to be natural, the people have to choose it. The CNT-FAI in the context of the Spanish Civil War is a good example of this.
But I know it’s hard for people to view things beyond their own experiences. I started off as a trotskyist and slowly transitioned to more and more decentralized ideologies. It took me awhile till I finally understood the concept of anarchism and its arguments for how it could work. Because like many, I thought that without a government people would descend into chaos. What helped me was finding real world examples of anarchism in practice, like the CNT-FAI, Makhnovista, and Zapatistas (although they don’t consider themselves anarchist)
Why does it need to be tried on a country scale? As a US citizen, unions, co-ops, and communes are a way to have a bit of it but on a very small scale.
There have been dozens of communist nations. Which one of them isn’t totalitarian?
Has legal protection for private property, isn’t socialism
Eh I’m pretty sure these parts are there to satisfy some outside actors, the theory behind it certainly is socialism/anarchism, and if you can make transformative change without sticking strictly to definitions from the 30s, that’s still a good thing. Also I believe that democracy/socialism is not really a once you’ve got it you’ve got it thing but a continuous process that strives to better itself constantly, so yes it’s still being built and it will be forever.
- Cuba
- North Korea
- China
- Cambodia (Red khmers)
“But it wasn’t real communism” ?
This meme would be more accurate if every known animal did actually have fur
deleted by creator
Pssst… (all Mammals have fur, not all animals are mammals.)
Ahh shit.
Nice try tankie.
A tankie would be defending the soviet union. Tankie =/= communist. Tankie = authoritarian “communist”
A tankie would be defending the soviet union. Tankie =/= communist. Tankie = authoritarian “communist”.
What theory writers inform your non-authoritarian communism?
Pyotor Kropotkin, Rudolf Rocker, Anton Pannekoek, Rosa Luxemburg, Errico Malatesta, and Abdullah Ocalan are the ones I’ve read.
Fair enough! I was curious if Marx was included, as he’s very “authoritarian” (at least as far as I understand it). If not, I don’t really have any argument with your list.
I have issue with Marx’s theories, particularly the idea we have to transition to communism. No government will freely give up its power, it’s too likely to become corrupted. Which is why I focus on anarchist theory. Granted Pannekoek and Luxemburg are Marxists, I find their takes on Marxism to be much better
Good one. He’s totally a libral now.
