this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2026
194 points (89.8% liked)
Memes
56461 readers
652 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, they're looking at what life for regular people is like udner a capitalist regime.
And claiming that people stuck together in spite of the government is a real galaxy brain take there bud. The reality is that GDR's socialist policies eliminated unemployment, provided cheap housing and childcare, and guaranteed basic necessities for everyone, which created material security is what allowed neighbors to look out for each other instead of competing for survival as they are forced to do under capitalism. The community you remember was a direct outcome of a system designed to put human needs above profit.
The wall was a defensive measure against a fascist West that was actively trying to undermine the GDR economically and politically as has been documented beyond all doubt. Meanwhile, the ransacking you witnessed after 1990 proved exactly what the GDR was protecting its citizens from. Dismissing all of that as rose-colored glasses is truly the height of intellectual dishonesty.
It's always the people who got theirs and have zero empathy for the needs of others who praise the transition to capitalism in post Soviet states. You're all telling on yourself there.
If by wrong way around you mean Stalin shouldn't have stopped at Berlin then I agree.
What he means is thst the guns on the berlin wall were pointed inwards. As in, to stop people LEAVING. Not from coming in. Pretty big hole in your logic.
Death to Germany lol
And I agree with that. Living in a capitalist hellscape is shit! Doesn't mean it was better back then though. It sure was different, better in some ways but worse in others.
And the West didn't shoot at people trying to flee and in the west your neighbors didn't rat you out to the authorities for listening to radio from the other side. And it wasn't the west that tore my family apart when the wall was build.
I have in not a single sentence praised the transition to capitalism, nor will I. What I do praise is the end of an authoritarian regime that oppressed it's populace. And I have criticized the rose colored glasses of those who didn't live in it. And to be clear: the west didn't bring freedom and democracy to the GDR. The citizens demonstrating in Plauen and Leipzig and Berlin did that. (Which btw. is a good point against it being an illegitimate state, because reforms could have been possible if the old guard hadn't resisted civil rights as much.) The GDR failed just when it's citizens had enough of it and tried to reform it and civil rights activists gained more influence. Maybe it would have been a better place when it could have existed longer and reformed but the unwillingness of the old men leading the country to accept ANY change led to its implosion before it cozld fulfill its promises.
GDR was a socialist state where means of production were publicly owned, and that fundamentally made it better than the current capitalist state. Yes, it had its contradictions, but it also existed under immense pressure from the west. The west didn't have to shoot people trying to flee because it had a massive economic advantage. It's kind of hilarious for people to pretend that capitalists would take a moral high ground if the positions were reversed. Doubly so now that privacy and rights are being rolled back right across the western sphere.
I mean you just made a false equivalence to whitewash capitalism in the same comment. Also, anybody who uses the term authoritarian exposes themselves as having a deeply infantile understanding of politics.
All states are authoritarian by their very nature, they differ in being extensions of different classes class based on the type of social organization within the state. The extent to which any particular state exerts its authority depends on the given conditions and circumstances it finds itself in. The whole idea that a socialist system creates some latent desire for exerting authority at the helm is beyond absurd. What you have in practice are class dynamics and class struggle. Nazi Germany and modern Germany are both authoritarian bourgeoisie states. And the key difference between them is that nazi Germany was in economic crisis and needed to violently suppress the working class to protect property of the capital owning class. Those same circumstances are once again starting to crop up in modern Germany hence the stratospheric rise of AfD.
It's also not possible to refer any liberal capitalist state a democracy in any meaningful sense. Liberalism consists of two main parts. First is political liberalism which focuses on wholesome ideas such as individual freedoms and democracy. Second is economic liberalism which centers around free markets, private property, and wealth accumulation. These two aspects form a contradiction. Political liberalism purports to support everyone’s freedom, while economic liberalism enshrines private property rights as sacred in laws and constitutions, effectively removing them from political debate.
As a result, liberalism justifies the use of state violence to safeguard property rights, over supporting ordinary people, which contradicts the promises of fairness and equality. Private property is seen as a key part of individual freedom under liberalism, and this provides the foundational justification for the rich to keep their wealth while ignoring the needs of everyone else. Thus, the talk of freedom and democracy ends up being nothing more than a fig leaf to provide cover for justifying capitalist relations. So, a liberal state cannot be democratic by its very definition.
The GDR failed because global fascist forces won a victory over USSR.
Did you actually live in the gdr or are you just a tankie lecturing someone else from afar?
I grew up in USSR dronie.
You've outed yourself as an anticommunist.
Uh... I don't know why I would have to "out" myself. I've never been shy about where I stand politically. I'm a green progressive social democrat (to put it into terms even americans can understand) and it says so in my profile:
You're somebody who unironically uses "nerd" as a slur, which is something I find far more damning and revealing.
checks out given that Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism
Forgive me for being a bit of an outsider, I thought socdem was essentially Democratic socialist, does it mean something else...?
Edit: just looked it up and it looks like a different thing than Democratic socialist but it certainly doesnt look fascism adjacent, am I missing something?
Socdems and demsocs both essentially push for welfare capitalism in the global north, which requires imperialism to both sustain capitalists and the welfare state. Socialism collectivizes production and distribution, which allows for safety nets without imperialism.
Ostensibly, social democrats believe in capitalism but want to borrow from socialist ideas to make it work. Democratic socialists are, ostensibly, anticapitalists who favor reform over revolution.
In practice, both groups protect capitalism. In practice, both groups side with fascism over socialism. In practice, you can ignore (especially Americans) those who call themselves demsocs and treat them as liberals.
Do you mean that of politicians who label themselves as demsocs, or anyone?
I don't say this to try and start a fight, just talking about my experience, but as someone learning which versions of leftist political ideology I connect with, the purity testing by every different faction of leftist where anyone that isn't their brand of leftist is a fascist is uhhh, challenging to try and navigate
I get the impression its because both both democratic socialist movements and non...Democratic socialist (what would be the term for the version of socialist you identify as? I feel like demsocs would say authoritarian but I don't know how y'all would describe your own category, non-derisively. Marxist Leninist feels more specific than I mean) have betrayed eachother historically when enough momentum existed for one of them to succeed and it came time for one to win out over the other (is that a reasonable understanding?)
But it does make trying to navigate and engage with these spaces very hard 😅. Are there other brands of leftist that your faction sees as also legitimate leftists? (again, appologies for referring to y'all in this way it feels vaguely passive agressive, I just don't have better language) Would the litmus test maybe be like a desire for revolution?
You're right. Marxist-Leninists understand the historical significance of revolution. When we push back against Social Democrats (and liberals disguised as reformist Socialists) we are making a choice based on study and history, not vibes. To MLs, your last sentence is crucial.
You can read about this topic. Beyond basic Marxist works, consider Rosa Luxembourg's "Reform or Revolution" or Lenin's "State and Revolution".
Interesting, thank you for explaining! Perhaps revolutionary communist is a better label for the grouping of leftist ideology y'all fit into then?
Thank you for the reading reccomendation :). At some point I need to make myself sit down and read some theory, I just haven't had the bandwidth yet. From the title "reform or revolution" by Rosa Luxembourg sounds interesting, and it looks like my library has it as an audio book or eBook ☺️
If you'd be open to chatting more and discussing kind of a broad question I've had- As I've explored a bit I've found I most intuitively relate to anarchism, but there are problems or social needs I can see anarchism potentially struggling to fill, so I have wanted to learn more about other leftist ideology and see where I end up. A lot of what I find intimidating about ideologies or governments that might fall into the revolutionary communist category is that through the perspective I have now, they seem authoritarian. What kind of actual governmental structure (or structures) in terms of power do revolutionary communists seek? How does power get organized? Are there ways that they structurally seek to counterbalance the way that concentrated power leads to overreach (like in western capitalist society democracy is ostensibly supposed to fill that role)? Like can revolutionary communism be Democratic (I know many folks feel electoralism is somewhat of a trap)? Are there reasons that doesnt seem like a concern to you for other reasons I may not have considered? (I don't really mean to ask 30 seperate questions, I just wanna leave things open ended to whatever kind of answer makes the most sense, and I don't know what kinda answer that might be)
Regardless, thanks for taking the time to reply previously, and I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts if you have more energy to explain how you see stuff ☺️
Warning, long:
There's a hazy progression that goes from demsocs, self-described Socialists and revolutionary communists. Most of us began as the former and, through experience and study, became the latter.
The difference between different groups purity testing is what they're testing for. Liberals and liberal-adjacent people test your moral purity, or at least the moral purity of your rhetoric. Say all the right things, signal you're on the good side, and don't signal that you want the bad things. They do this because they are political idealists: that is, they have a fundamentally magical understanding of how power works, even if they don't realize it. They think that if enough people hold The Right Opinions, then change will spontaneously follow. Their view of the world is a static one where everything fits into neat moral categories, and conveniently those moral categories just so happen to match what the person espousing it is comfortable with. To a liberal or socdem, violence against capital is morally unacceptable, no matter how many people it stands to save (and as of right now, it stands to save all of them). Their test is concieved as a test of abstract moral purity; in reality, it's a test of how much atrocity you are willing to abide for the sake of being a good boy.
Marxists, communists, etc are materialists: we believe that the world is a constantly moving, ever evolving machine with a trillion moving parts that all change and are changed by one another. To make a long story short, dialectical materialism or "marxism" is simply applying the scientific method to all of reality instead of just formal science. That's why the phrase "reality has a marxist bias" exists: because communists begin with the facts and build an understanding upwards, while liberals begin with the primacy of liberalism/capitalism and build an architecture of justification downwards, until they create friction with the uneven terrain of reality. "Blue maga" is an example of this phenomenon. Bill Maher is the spiritual avatar of this phenomenon.
When Communists purity test, we do so based on the effectiveness of your practices and the understanding that guides them. It's basically peer review. We're purity testing in a chemical way, to determine the potency of your shit and assess it for wider adoption.
To your last question, I respect anarchists. We fundamentally love humanity in the same way and want the same things for it, we just disagree on tactics. But they have a deep understanding of the urgent necessity of revolutionary change, and that makes them comrades.
I'll be a honest a lot of that was pretty flowery for me, but theres some stuff in there that was really interesting and I appreciate you sharing your perspective with me! ☺️
It does feel like revolutionary communists (that seems like a better label for me to use :) also purity test for some of the same reasons everyone does- to dismiss the stances they see as outside of their group. Thats more the purity testing I find it hard to navigate. The implication in one of the previous comments is that a socdem is really just a liberal, and a liberal is capitalist, and a capitalist is really just a fascist so actually you're a fascist. Which I don't think is really ever a particularly useful beyond dismissing the need to ever engage with that person. I get why, but the way I see it you can just say that a socdem has bad ideology. It doesn't require comparison to a fascist, which I don't really think is accurate, though the other reply about social democrats and demsocs siding with capitalism when revolution is on the table makes sense, and I can see why that would make revolutionary communists uninterested in engaging
And thats interesting! Anarchism I think is what I most intuitively feel drawn to, but I don't feel like there are some things I see it struggling to achieve, and I understand political theory well enough to truly identify with any ideology so I'm just trying to learn more and see where it takes me
If I may ask a question (don't feel obligated to answer, I know I'm showing up in other people's spaces and just interrogating folks to learn lol 😅)- a lot of what I find intimidating about ideologies or governments that would fall into the revolutionary communist category is that through the perspective I have now, they seem authoritarian and I generally (as one might guess from interest in anarchism) lean anti-authoritarian. What kind of actual governmental structure (or structures) in terms of power do revolutionary communists seek? How does power get organized? Are there ways that they structurally seek to counterbalance the way that concentrated power leads to overreach (like in western capitalist society democracy is ostensibly supposed to fill that role)? Like can revolutionary communism be Democratic? Are there reasons that doesnt seem like a concern to you for other reasons I may not have considered? (I don't really mean to ask 30 seperate questions, I just wanna leave things open ended to whatever kind of answer makes the most sense, and I don't know what kinda answer that might be)
And/or I would also welcome thoughts on what you mean by "applying the scientific method to all of reality", that idea sounds interesting but its too abstract for me to know what that might actually mean in practice
Regardless of whether you choose to chat more thanks for taking the time to reply with your previous comment ☺️
There is a longer more complicated history around the term social democracy, but the short version is that beginning in the later 1800s, there arose two camps: reformist / pacifist / bourgeios socialists, and revolutionary ones. The reformist ones formed parties who, in every country they did so, ended up joining forces with capitalists to repress and put down the revolutionary ones. Every country has a long history of socdems doing this, as its been occurring since the 1800s when Marx and Engels noted this tendency.
What about social democracy / democratic socialism / the Nordic model? Isn't Sweden socialist?
Some more links:
Gotcha, that makes sense and definitely helps explain some of the tensions I've seen between y'all and other leftists on the threadiverse, at least in terms of where y'all are coming from. Maybe I'll bug some folks from the other sort of faction and see if I can learn what their deal is. I really appreciate you providing all the links and the historical context! I watched a bit of the first one and it was interesting, I can see now how much of northern Europe would fit into that camp you're describing- thanks for teaching me the term "Nordic model" that is helpful to know!
If you'd be open to chatting more and discussing kind of a broad question I've had- As I've explored a bit I've found I most intuitively relate to anarchism, but there are problems or social needs I can see anarchism potentially struggling to fill, so I have wanted to learn more about other leftist ideology and see where I end up. A lot of what I find intimidating about ideologies or governments that might fall into the revolutionary communist category is that through the perspective I have now, they seem authoritarian. What kind of actual governmental structure (or structures) in terms of power do revolutionary communists seek? How does power get organized? Are there ways that they structurally seek to counterbalance the way that concentrated power leads to overreach (like in western capitalist society democracy is ostensibly supposed to fill that role)? Like can revolutionary communism be Democratic (I know many folks feel electoralism is somewhat of a trap)? Are there reasons that doesnt seem like a concern to you for other reasons I may not have considered? (I don't really mean to ask 30 seperate questions, I just wanna leave things open ended to whatever kind of answer makes the most sense, and I don't know what kinda answer that might be)
Either way, thank you for your time and for collecting some reading for me, I will have to sit down and at least skim through them :)
That profile isn't available on every client, btw.
Green progressive social democrat, so you are pro imperialist, pro NATO, pro rearmament, pro Israel, aka pro genocide, apartheid and settler colonialism, pro Ukraine war, pro Iran war, pro deportation, pro refugee camps on the borders of Europe, pro surveillance, pro destruction of the welfare state, pro destruction of worker rights, all mixed with a little bit of pro renewables and pro ...ya, that's it, what else, help me out here, I don't see any other "pro"gressive things in current green or social democrat parties.
You also lamented about being banned on lemmy.ml and yet, here you are.
We're talking about the German parties Die Grünen (Greens) and SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany), so, not sure why an American anti-communist liberal has the urge to vomit out their uninformed bullshit, only to append it with some derogatory drivel about "tankies" "insulting people" and "making stuff up". If I wouldn't know any better, and I don't, I'd conclude that you are a first grade idiot.
But alas, the benefit of the doubt: Are you actually interested in learning or are you just venting? If you're interested to learn how the German Greens are imperialist, pro genocide and anti-welfare state I might invest the time to give you a more serious answer. But right now, my impression is, that you only want your prejudices reinforced and spew some hate towards an outgroup you struggle to understand.
Now, I may not be familliar with political terms, but social democracy tends to be on the left... And most of the things you pointed out, are on the far right... So you can see my confusion, right?
E: @Enkrod@feddit.org this is kinda an answer to you, although, you ain't the one stating the confusion. A bit of a mix up, content is relevant anyway, so...
Yes, I understand your confusion. See, I find this confusing: in the earlier comment you proclaimed
Which suggests you have an understanding of political terms or at least the reality of the politics you identify with. But that just might be partially my fault, as in your profile you're also sharing coordinates of a political compass. From that I conclude that you did their questionnaire and went "ah, so that's where I'm at".
The political compass is unscientific and trash in general. It's trying to squeeze their limited understanding of society into these neat and simple axis. I strongly suggest not to rely on this stuff, especially not to proclaim political affiliation or base voting decisions on what it says.
But that's just regarding the test. The main issue is, that this political identity does not overlap very much with how parties, generally described as Social Democrats or Greens, act in real world politics. It's an idealistic, moralistic approach, where one relies not on what actually happens in the real world and through that align their political identity accordingly, but based on an idea, of what these parties supposedly stand for.
That's why I listed all these things, because these are the kind of politics SPD and Grüne are facilitating and implement in reality. They practically do far right Realpolitik. Baerbock (Grüne) said that hospitals can lose their protected status (in reference to Gaza), the Grüne supports xenophobic policies and also the largest rearmament of the German state since WWII. SPD just helped to deconstruct the 8 hour workday (which workers bloodily have fought for against the capitalist class) and facilitates the destruction of the social welfare and safety net, while also planning for war (SPD chancellor Scholz announced the Zeitenwende) and supplying Israel with weaponry and supports US wars by allowing the use of US bases on German territory. Both of these parties help implement European anti-migrant and surveillance policies. Just a few examples. This things aren't green or social and a lot of these things are not supported by their voters, so it's questionable to even call it democratic, solely based on the option to vote for or against their flavor of capitalist management every couple of years.
These parties act not in the interest of the people and according to their own advertised ideals, but as nuances of the capitalist class. Any concessions granted to the working class only happen through immense pressure or to pacify the upset masses. Anytime they can get away with working against the common people, they will. They protect the status quo of a society based on class, there's nothing progressive about it.
Well. ya, also what the other people in this thread said, especially RiverRock's longer remarks on Idealism and Materialism.
The guy you're replying to isn't Enkrod
I'd ask you to elaborate on why you think "nerd" is a slur, but I'm a bit afraid of the psychic damage your liberal brain worms might conjure up.
So I'll do this instead: shut up, anticommunist nerd.