• Fazoo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh here we go with “That wasn’t real communism!” as if any other communist state on this planet is any different.

    • CAPSLOCKFTW@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean they violated some if tge main principles outlined by Marx, like the other states, who almost all followed the lenin-stalin-model, so yeah. Prove me wrong.

        • Fazoo@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, because that’s not the topic of discussion. Not here to entertain projection and whataboutism as a defense mechanism of hurt feelings.

          • fishtacos@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Eh, it’s kinda both. Yes, it’s nice to stay on one topic like how we can make communism the best it can be and learn lessons of the past. But when people look at some of those decisions/theories and say “that sounds terrible, I’d rather keep what I have” then you really gotta cross-compare. America is only as well off as it is because of slavery, corruption, death and destruction. It’s just not death and destruction of their own people and land, so most American citizens don’t “see” that. Or if they do, it’s a “well, that sucks, we should do better” kind of thing, but lack real recognition that the system benefits them so much. As well, the capitalist autocracies have been way more deadly and authoritarian and corrupt than anything communist, and it’s important for people to learn about the differences.

            A: “Communism is authoritarian” B: “Wehll, sometimes, but capitalism is too, and it is MUCH worse” A: “Don’t commit whataboutism” B: “Uhhhh, but we have to compare systems to know which is better and which is worse…”

            Just IMHO.

    • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They are though. China, Vietnam and Cuba are all pretty drastically different and they are all communist countries.

        • LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The functioning of their government is absolutely unequivocally communist. They have allowed some form of capital interests, which I would not consider communist in definition, but the government retains control over nearly all those interests and the plan they’ve put forward from the beginning is to renationalize industries as they reach a point of competitive development with the western world.

          • vinhill@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m far from an expert on communism. But the government, and especially a single person, retaining power over the state and economy is far from communism, it’s more authoritarian. Communism in it’s very base is the citizens owning the means of production, not the state owning those. This in no way is represented in China, where the state has a lot of power over the economy and owns parts of some companies, but there are still capitalists owning factories and workers working there.

          • NattyNatty2x4@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I’m going to preface this with saying I don’t support communism or centrally planned socialism, so this isn’t me handwaving things away. It’s just that this is a nuanced topic and definitions are important, and the red scare has sucessfully lied to most people about what these words mean.

            The government being in control of everything is not the sole defining feature of communism. Socialism is where the people own the means of production (business assets), typically through the government owning it all. Communism takes that a step further by removing currency and markets from the system and using some other system to determine how to create and allocate goods and services. And for the people to own the means of production through the government, they need to have an actual say in the government.

            Basically to have centrally-planned socialism or communism, you need the government owning all business assets in addition to something like a democracy or republic form of governmental policy. If you don’t have a governmental policy that is controlled by the people, then the people don’t own the means of production and by definition you don’t have socialism or communism. You have one of the various forms of autocracy/oligarchy/etc.

            The issue we see here with people conflating modern day China, the USSR, etc with communism is that the change in government started out as socialist or communist movements, but then got coopted by fascists who removed political agency from the people, but also decided to keep calling themselves communists. However, overthrowing a form of government and pretending you’re still that form of government doesn’t magically make it true. North Korea isn’t democratic or a republic just because the rulers call themselves it. Similarly, China’s government is defined by its actions: state capitalist and not communist.