this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
180 points (91.3% liked)
Asklemmy
47155 readers
648 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is that right wing ideology, basic or not, supports oligarchy, plutocracy, whatever you want to call it. Calling basic millitant opposition to oppressive structures an issue of "authoritarianism" and then seeking a solution somehow unburdened by the sin of needing to actually stand for itself or against the larger problem at hand is naive and idealistic.
I do agree that speaking past each other is absolutely a key problem, but speaking against opposition to right-wingers gets in the way of that message.
Or maybe the mere fact that you feel that way is more proof of my point, and why we need to fix the communication. I don't think the left and right are actually that far apart, but identity politics is a wedge movement meant to divide.
If instead we speak about actual policy, and changes we want to se, we may get more traction working together.
Also, left and right both support both oligarchy and plutocracy.
The right sets the conditions for all business to grow which results in people getting rich leaving everyone else behind to fend for themselves. The left set the conditions to decide where exorbitant about of tax dollars go which has proven time and time again to result in nepotism and gross financial mismanagement. See how those broad strokes are simply inflammatory claims?
Orwells Politics and the English Language is a must read on exactly why this kind of dialogue is exactly what they want us to be having.
Violence is not the answer though. Not yet. Uncoordinated violence would just result in thousands dead and no change. Watch Les MisΓ©rables again if you doubt me.
The Left stands for some form of collectivized property ownership, while the Right stands for individual property ownership. Ie, the Left stands broadly for Socialism while the Right broadly stands for Capitalism. These are diametrically opposed.
The characterization of the left and right you give, conflating taxes with leftism and business with rightism, is an extremely narrow view of Political Economy that sees Capitalism as the only existing option. This is wrong, and confusing for everyone else.
As for Orwell, I wouldn't really give much credit to that sex abusing chauvanist. He is celebrated in the West as someone claiming to be on the Left, while working with British intelligence agencies and making lists of suspected Jews and communists, both of which he hated. Everyone should read On Orwell in my opinion.
Violence is a tool, and a necessary one, sadly. Millitant organization has only ever been the way the Working Classes have been able to gain real victories. Read Blackshirts and Reds and listen to Blowback, Revolution is the only genuine path that has liberated the working classes.
Spoken like a true commie
Yes. I am a Marxist-Leninist, dirty commie, pinko, whatever you want to call me. You're on a site made by "commies," there are a lot of us here.
I'm realizing that
You're more than welcome to learn more, but calling people "commie" without a hint of irony will probably just be really funny for everyone else.
Considering that communism is responsible for close to 100 million deaths in the last 100 years vs 20 million by radical right wing views, it's wild you don't realize that being a communist is quantifiably worse than being a nazi, and we can all agree that actual Nazis deserve violence.
See, this is what I mean, you're an unintentionally very funny person. Using the 100 million figure comes from the long debunked Black Book of Communism, which included Nazis killed during World War II, was made before Yeltsin opened up the Soviet Archives, which even right-wing historians see as the most accurate, and where the author Robert Conquest literally made up numbers in order to get to the 100 million figure, a nice round scary number.
Moreover, you are far understating the deaths caused by Capitalism. 15 million people die per year of preventable poverty, as a direct result of Capitalism. even if we believe in the already laughably debunked 100 million figure, Capitalism's bloody toll already eclipses the supposed death toll of Communism in a century in less than a decade.
Further still, you are exclusively using the Nazis, not all far-right violence. Churchill caused the deaths of 4 million Bengalis, the US invaded Iraq and killed 1 million people and destroyed their critical infrastrucure on false-pretenses of "WMD" that we know they knew better in order to grab their oil, 7 million people died in the 1990s when Capitalism replaced Socialism in the USSR, half a million were killed or maimed by Agent Orange in Vietnam, millions died from US bombings in Korea and Vietnam, and so, so many more.
Communism, on the other hand, has brought massive improvements in life expectancies, such as doubling in the USSR and PRC, massive jumps in literacy rates, robust safety nets like free and high quality healthcare and education, full employment, childcare, lower retirement ages, and much, much more. It is Communism to thank for the massive reduction in poverty over the last century, thanks to the USSR and PRC, while if only Capitalist countries are checked that number goes up, as in more impoverished. Communist countries also ended famines in countries where famine was common beforehand, like Agrarian China and Tsarist Russia.
See how the Soviets democratized their economy (also read Soviet Democracy ):
Lowered wealth disparity dramatically:
While maintaining one of the most rapidly developing economies in the world (also read *[Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union) ):
I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, believing Communism to be just as bad as Nazism, or somehow worse, is a form of Nazi apologia. The truth is that the Nazis were unquestionably worse, and that by trying to minimize their evil you're doing the work of fascists for them. The Communists were the ones who defeated the Nazis and stopped the holocaust, 80% of total World War II combat was on the Eastern Front., without the Red Army the Nazis likely would have won.
If you want to learn, I am more than happy to help. I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List and can help dispel some of the outdated Red Scare mythology that evidently you still believe. However, if you're going to go around calling people "commies" and saying they are worse than the Nazis, then all you'll get is a bunch of essays and articles, books, videos, etc debunking your claims, and a bit of laughter that someone still uses the word "commie" as an insult.
I mean I did the math myself using up to date numbers.
Modern governments are hardly right wing by any stretch. To call the actions of hybrid socialist capitalist states right wing is disingenuous. Mao's China, Lenin, Stalin, the October revolution, the deaths of modern day communism in Cuba, Vietnam, etc..
Modern day USA is not a right wing idealogy. It's a hybrid between both sides of the aisle. Churchill was a right wing politician in a liberal society. Being the farthest right in a leftist democracy is a still being a liberal by all classic definitions. Using actual modern figures the deaths total around 100 million not some antiquated debunked BS propaganda book crafted by a loon (I agree that it was totally insane that people accepted those numbers then).
To say 15 million people die a year to preventable deaths because of capitalism is quite the stretch of the imagination, especially given that almost every major government in the western world is Neo-liberal / semi-socialist in its foundation (and I'm not saying that's bad).
Capitalism as an economic model has been proven to lift millions of people out of poverty. CCCP vs Russian Federation. The lower wealth disparity just means they were all equally poor and no one was doing well. Even some of the most decadent Soviet lifestyles were still horrendous by western standards. That's a terrible statistic used by extreme left propagandists to incite anger and hate. It's relevant in cases like countering the existence of the plutocracy currently running the US government, where the disparity means equal opportunity is no longer possible. The US is not an example of a properly functioning capitalist country. It's an example of an aristocracy turned plutocracy where no amount of hard work can get you to the top. That defies the basic tenants of capitalism.
I was not using exclusively Nazis, I just used them as the easy equalizer of terms that should be raising alarm bells in your head that you've gone too far.
Iraqi invasion was the outcome of aristocracy not Capitalism. Trumps policies are the outcomes of plutocracy, not capitalism.
Capitalism set the conditions for his father to achieve wealth, but those conditions died in the 80s/90s. The fact that Trump was able to lose his wealth time and time again, and that banks are bailed out by government constantly is actually socialism and plutocracy. Those are not capitalistic principles, meaning it's the desire to prop up businesses to protect the people from a failing economy that is allowing terrible business leaders to rule a country. IE, nepotism spawns from government support to business and industry, which is why nationalizing resources and businesses using a socialist model which is what communism and nazism both advocate for will always fail. They end up with the same outcome. A select few close insiders ruling the middle class (plutocracy or aristocracy). Lenin, Stalin, etc. were not common people. They were above the law and were not equals to the common man.
As someone who's second family were those who escaped the union, I can assure you those safety nets are nothing more than numbers on a paper. Saying you have supports when your basic living conditions lacked common necessities, is like bragging about the build quality and speed of a 1960s BMW with a rusted out frame and no wheels sitting in a junk yard. It's a beautifully crafted machine, and engineering marvel, but its state of affairs without proper care and maintenance are a pile of rubble.
Essentially, your entire comment relies on the following errors:
Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which Private Property forms the principle aspect of the economy. Examples of Capitalist economies include the Russian Federation, United States, France, Norway, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, the UK, Germany, Canada, etc. Calling the US a "plutocracy" or whatever you want doesn't change that it's Capitalist, and relies on Private Property as the driving factor of the economy. The government bailing out wealthy Capitalists is Capitalism in action, the state is subservient to the Private Sector in Capitalist systems.
Socialism is a Mode of Production by which Public Property forms the principle aspect of the economy. Examples of Socialist economies include the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, etc. Socialism is not when the government does stuff or provides safety nets, the US is not a "hybrid" because it has a post office. The government in Socialist countries often lets business owners fail, see the Evergrande collapse in China, or the punishment of Jack Ma.
Capitalism is right-wing. Violence perpetuated in the interest of Capitalist aims, such as the United States massacring countries that go against its Imperialism, is righwing violence. An easy example is the US slaughtering 1 million Iraqis in order to gain access to their oil.
As for the "making numbers up" part, you said you "did the math yourself." You provided no sources of any of that, basically meaning you made it up, and redefined what left and right mean in a political context. It's deliberately dishonest.
Now to address your claims:
I already showed how the economy grew rapidly in the USSR, yet disparity lowered. Do you think these economic gains vanished into thin-air? No. Instead, it came to the people, which is why life expectancy doubled in Russia and China after adopting Socialism. They did not immediately get to compete with the US Empire's stolen wealth, but their lives rapidly improved over the Tsarist system and the nationalist system.
The government in the USSR was not a "ruling class." See the wealth disparity metrics, they lowered. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest was about a factor of 10 in the USSR, unlike Tsarist Russia and the Russian Federation, where that number is in the many, many, many thousands and millions. Poverty went drastically upward in the Russian Federation, and 2/3rds of Russians wish Socialism had remained. By far the biggest elimination of poverty in human history came from the USSR and PRC, and it isn't close, while Capitalism perpetuates poverty and Imperialism.
Again, I can help you learn more if you want, but making numbers up and trying to redefine words into something else in order to prove a point doesn't help anyone. You aren't convincing anyone here, and you'll never convince me either when I've done the effort of actually digging into the facts, like finding the 15 million figure you just ignored. You're welcome to learn, again I have plenty of sources and have done the time to read them and read up on Marxist-Leninist theory and history.
Considering all anyone seems to produce here are news articles and blatant propaganda journals, I don't think it's worth my time to produce a peer reviewed level of detail.
I produced peer reviewed sources, news articles, primary sources, and more, and you produced none. It was worth my time, though, so if anyone wanders in they can learn, even if you're determined not to.
You produced journals and books that are blatant propaganda. Not science or fact.
Not at all, I provided peer reviewed sources and primary accounts. You provided exactly nothing. If you're going to throw a fit about sources even Wikipedia uses, the least you could do is find a source of your own.
Or, here me out, you could stop trying to fight facts that are uncomfortable for you to learn. Much better for you in the long run, I'll say.
Those sources might be good enough for you, but I assessed at best two of your sources to be credible.
For the record, Wikipedia is NOT considered a credible source by the scientific community. I'd have been laughed at if I even tried to use that in a paper, which I did when I saw you use it.
Wikipedia isn't a source, Wikipedia references sources. I frequently use Wikipedia links instead of the source itself because it's western controlled, and therefore less likely to be seen as pro-Communist "propaganda" by people like yourself. Either way, though, the sources I linked are still sound, you've done nothing to disprove them and have provided no sources of your own, other than numbers you admitted to have found "on your own," ie they came to you in a dream.
Out of curiousity, why are you continuing this conversation? You're only further making my argument look better. Is it for self-satisfaction? A genuine wish to debate? Then why not bring at least one source, or try to counter anything that I've said. As it stands, based on the upvotes and downvotes, you're the only one being laughed at here.
Because I'm hoping people read this and have the wherewithal to actually review the validity of your BS Wikipedia links before they go down a rabbit hole of starvation and misery.
Also you may want to re-read your 2/3 link again for some of the other stats there, and then verify how the polling was done. That was already way more work than I intended to put into this.
Well, seems like your intentions have backfired, and by not putting in any effort, even if you were right, you ended up making my points look more valid. I do recommend people read and look into my sources, hopefully your advice to do so helps create more Socialists.
Yes, I know how the 2/3rds data was gathered, and I am aware of the other countries listed there. It doesn't invalidate my point, and the data is still sound.
On one final question, what do you mean by a rabbit hole of "starvation and misery?" Countries adopting Socialism got more food secure after doing so. Take the PRC, for example, which recently eliminated extreme poverty in a Socialist economy. If 15 million people per year are dying due to poverty, sounds like we need to move beyond Capitalism and into Socialism.
We don't agree on much, but I am not against the kind of socialism China employs. The PRC is a great example of a hybrid between socialism and capitalism.
Their party system is a farce dictatorship and the level of surveillance they conduct on their people, the social credit system, etc. are blatant violations of human nature, and I can't support that. But the concept of a their mix of the two systems is excellent. But that is not actual communism by any stretch. That's what I would call a perfect hybrid system that I was eluding to earlier.
I really don't think you're in a position to tell China what their economic model is. They aren't a hybrid between Capitalism and Socialism, but firmly Socialist, because their large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, while the Private Sector is dominated by small industry and self-proprietors. This is straight from Marx, who believed that markets themselves centralize and therefore build up the large industry public ownership thrives on.
Again, if you want to learn more about Socialism and Communism, I am more than willing to walk you through theory. That would be a much more productive conversation, I would think. However, you have a very clear tendency to speak confidently on matters you have not studied, such as claiming China is a "hybrid system" just because it follows classical Marxism.
You also rapid-fired more unsourced claims, so I'll address those:
China is a democracy. It is not a liberal democracy, where multiple parties compete, but a Socialist democracy. You can watch a quick video from Chinese state media on how it functions, or how elections work. Over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their government, and the majority believes they have a democratic impact on policy, at a higher rate than the US.
Social Credit doesn't really exist in China. There's a version for businesses, but not the often memed about version of a totalitarian spy state.
The US has more CCTVs per Capita than the PRC. A large factor is due to China's lower crime rates, due to having better working class protections and safety nets.
So, to return, China is Socialist. The presence of markets are only with respect to where Marxists would want markets, as Marxists believe you must develop out of markets, not simply make them illegal and punish them. If you approve of this system of publicly owning and planning firms as they get larger and leaving small businesses and cooperatives free to develop into these large firms before aquiring them, you might just be a Communist!
Bold of you to think I haven't studied this.
You give it away when you said the US isn't really Capitalist. It's pretty clear that, at minimum, you haven't studied Marxism in any capacity. You also are quick to dismiss evidence and even quicker to firehose a bunch of claims without any sources too, so that doesn't help your case either.
Indeed it is, hence it being absolutely correct.
Whatever you say LenPutin