Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Because there's nothing wrong with being communist, and yet most of western civilization publicly demonizes communism and anyone who espouses communist views. Given the freedom to share an idea without fearing ad hominem attacks, ideas are judged on their merits alone.
See also: Satanism, Atheism, Socialism.
The issue that every "communist" when pushed will take position on atrocities committed by various communists regimes... they gonna do that thing that "fascists" do: "well he really did not do it but if he did, they clearly deserved it"
Tell that to east Asians or Europeans to their face... everyone is deff hard online tho.
I find that liberals are much more dismissive of US atrocities. Most communists I speak to know a wealth of details about the failings of mao and stalin.
Ask a US conservative about our 20th and 21st century atrocities - torture, massacres, coups, support for genocidal regimes and ecocidal companies, etc. - and they'll proudly defend our brutality. Ask a liberal and they'll hedge, deny and justify like an internet tankie who's never opened a history book.
Boomers are deff in denial but younger gen seems less likely to straight up deny it. It would be coached as "lesser of two evils" lol
Social media has a lot of bad faith actors who polarize every discussion so top comments will generally be extreme with an inflammatory shit show under.
That hasn't been my experience at all. Sure, there are nationalists who will defend their own favorite Communist^(TM) Regime, but an ideological believer in communism is just that.
I have never encountered that argument. Is that something Tankies say?
What I have seen is the often mocked argument, that these regimes were not communist in the first place.
Actual communism has never existed and probably never will.
There are however plenty of communists that will openly denounce stalinism. That is the entire premise of Animal Farm, btw.
There's nothing wrong with communism or being communist, correct. But what we know for fact is that the human species is incompatible with communism, moreso as the population is increased. There is, by nature, traits within that are antagonistic with communism. Communism has failed every time. Our best efforts so far are embracing some communist ideals whilst pandering around with others.
Will we get there? Probably.
Within this era? Hell no. We've only just started evolving an adaption to a shrinking planet and working with neighbours. However, as you know we're still very divided, tribalistic, and prone to taking whatever advantages we can get. This is, after all, how we got to be number 1 and millions of years of evolution can't be stifled or changed in mere generations.
This is the realisation most people have during year 3 or 4 of the college communist phase. You accept the reality of Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm, that human nature is why we can't have nice things...yet. I reckon around 2100–2150, after we've been through some more shit together and wanked another world war out of our system.
Will it last? Probably not lol.
Sorry what? How on earth would such a thing even be established as fact? This is a very bold claim.
I'm always really interested in what people mean when they say this. Is it that no organisation that has tried has managed to realise the utopia Marx predicted? Is it that they tend to lose wars with the USA? Is it that great suffering has occurred?
What is a system that has not failed? Like it's pretty apparent whatever we're doing now isn't working. We're in a mass extinction, the climate is destabilising, homelessness and sickness exist alongside people that personally own jet aircraft.
Genuinely I would love to know what specifically you mean because I see this a lot and it confuses the hell out of me.
Hopeful aside btw. Lord of the flies basically happened once except the kids all banded together and helped each other because humans are actually extremely pro social. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months
I don't want to sound patronising, but you have access to the entirety of our species' history. It's more about going through it to try find a time where it has worked. Beyond the exception of small communities, in every case I know of it has failed before maturing to a complete enough state—this actually includes some of those small communities too. Unless you're confusing socialism with communism because of all it's socialist traits.
I mean, do you? You think early man was a rugged individualist who pulled himself up by his boot straps?
Homosapiens survived hundreds of thousands of years as a result of collectivism and sharing resources, which are the central tenets of communism. From a historical perspective, the ideas that underpin capitalism - private ownership, the elite controlling the means of production, individuals acting in their own self-interest - came about only very, very recently.
Voluntarily sharing resources.
That's naive. I think because you're taking a rather shallow capitalism vs communism stance, not understanding all the capitalist traits your homo sapiens with communist traits had.
None-the-less, you've deviated far from the main point and referring to known prehistoric eras before the concept of the topic was conceived is not where I thought this could even go.
You're also referring to negative byproducts of capitalism as "ideas" of it. There are few social or economical isms that have byproducts holding true to the ideas and intent. That's my point. Human nature often ruins great ideas and why communism has yet to show any success. We have many great ideas on paper, but they don't factor human nature.
Well, if we look at humans as a species then obviously the greater part of that is prehistorical. Clearly our "nature" is not incompatible with collectivism when looking at small communities and groups.
However, I think you have a point when it comes to more complex societies with increasingly larger populations, which, as a rule, have tended to form hierarchical class systems that are antithetical to collectivist ideals.
So we could say that humans have historically been fine with communism up to a certain point. It's when they start to form nation states and larger communities that societies have generally gravitated towards hierarchy and plutocracy, for whatever reason.
Exactly that. And as I said, it's not just for communism, this goes for most ideologies that influence society.
I think greed and power are the biggest kickers. These two seem to come as a way to ensure survivability in a large population. But it's of no benefit in a small community where everyone's acknowledged.
So there's a very big difference between X hasn't happened yet and X is factually impossible. Imagine standing there in 1750s and saying "we know for a fact that the human species is fundamentally incompatible with flight". Very shortly you would look like the complete arse that making that statement made you.
I don't dispute nobody has achieved the utopia Marx hypothesised, that is trivial to demonstrate, I'm asking how on earth you would establish fundamental incompatibility.
Actually the current prevailing theory is that primitive communism was the state humans lived in before the founding of the first proto states, so if anything your stance should be that evidence suggests humans are fundamentally compatible with communism, unless you mean to argue we have undergone some shift in our fundamental nature in which case I would again ask where your evidence is.
Tribalism is compatible with communism. Kind of where the idea comes from. Unfortunately that's not how society is these days. Whether communism, capitalism, or any other ism, control needs to be in place to ensure everyone is in line with it, since it's impossible for 100% of a population to be, especially as that population goes into the millions.
With an authority or controlling wealth, everything results in an elite of some form to try keep a system in place, and that's the start of failure.
If a village of 100 has just 1 asshole, things can be ruined. Scale up to global populations and you've got your answer. No ism can keep the psychopathic, narcissistic, or competitive nature of these people from ruining whatever ism it is you'd like to have.
Sorry, could you be a little more explicit in terms of how you're answering my questions? I don't really want to get drawn in to some aimless rambling bullshit.
I haven't mentioned tribalism, I don't even know what you're referring to or why you're bringing it up.
I don't know what you mean by how society is these days. Are you saying society has changed fundamental human nature? what is the relevance please?
you're talking to an anarchist so I have no disagreement there. I do wonder if you've ever read Marx though. Could you please honestly answer with what publications of his you've actually read? if none, what publications about Marxism have you read? if that list is exhaustive the three most recent?
???
Yeah, sure. The feeling's mutual.
The topic of conversation is the scale of success of communism. If an original comment gets dissected poorly and barrels down a tangents of off-topic rabble, I re-read it and ignore stuff off-topic or unrelated, since that's for a different conversation at a different time.
The points provided are my perspective of this topic and why I have that perspective. It is things I've experienced and know,, not belief to plug narrative.
Some things you have raised are loosely associated with our tribalism or post-tribalism era. However, tribalism is still relevant in modern society with political parties, sports teams, socioeconimcal ideologies, etc. It reaches back to our nature of belonging in a camp or community.
Quite the opposite. Society is a new thing. The more we attempt to progress it forward, we see more incompatibilities between our ideals and our nature. We will eventually evolve our nature into those ideals, but it cannot be entirely the other way around. As an anarchist, you'd understand your stance is predominantly the result of ideologies conflicting with human nature.
The manifesto, obv. However also a series of works and citations while studying. I don't see any purpose in listing anything. Though I'd like to point out I was reading a lot on other modern social/political/economical ideologies so as to prevent any bias. This resulted in my conclusion that none of them work and a fool tribes themself to one. For communism especially, this is an ironic position to take, but seems to be the most popular for thee average "communist" these days. It is quite literally impossible to have communism without acceptance of conflicting ideologies or nature.
Unironically "why didn't Marx think of human nature lol"
Actually read a book and stop trying to sound like a smartass asserting stuff on the basis of "it feels true".
Must be the lizard people then, huh? I mean, if human nature has had nothing to do with the outcome of Marxism's lack of uptake in global societies and cultures- Oh wait, I'm doing it again. Just because that "feels true" is might not be so. I'm learning...
So, since that's all a lie and I'm clearly unaware that Maxism is actually wildly successful across the globe, please, recommend a book so I can keep riding the Revelation Train.
I would like to know why people keep bringing up Karl on a comment about communism. Maybe he has works you know about which explains how they are synonymous. Any literature with that would help since everything I've read clearly disassociated and outlines the two, including Karl's own writings.
Marxism lack of global uptake on a map:
States that had communist governments in red, states that the Soviet Union believed at one point to be moving toward socialism in orange and other socialist states in yellow. Not all of the bright red states remained Soviet allies.
These aren't Maxist states. Those that do have Marxist traits are (mostly) Stalin's Maxism-Leninism which obviously has some very different views to Marxism, especially on social matters and rejection of the left.
You're even commecting the Soviets in, so I can only assume you're referring to the Stalinisation and De-Stalinisation periods, which this map seems to be just that.
But the map and commentary is still interesting.
Marxism isn’t a rigid doctrine, it adapts to the material conditions of the world around it, as it was designed to do.
That doesn't mean anything to the point I'm raising. But it is correct and why it has hybridised with other ideologies. It is another part of human nature to pick and choose what suits best. Also why capitalism is as bad as it is.
I didn’t know “human nature” was shorthand for “current capitalist states”.
It's not. That would be very inefficient shorthand.