Well in the full extend you could read das Kapital, or an abridged version of it.
But the remedy that he seeks is an international uprising against the possessive class and the dissolution of the power of capital. Unfortunately every ‘communist’ state is just an autocratic state role-playing communism. Sometimes with their own monarchy (north Korea) some more oppressive, some outright capitalist (China).
You realize that it’s called Marxism-Leninism correct? Because Lenin and by extension other writers expanded on this topic to clown on “communism purists” like you.
You know, I was going to make a long detailed post about how that’s wrong, but I just can’t.
It’s so hilariously wrong and asinine that it’s comical. You have never before opened a book in your life, or hell, even bothered to Google anything about what you just said.
Please, you do realize when you say things like this without having a clue what you’re talking about, that you look like an absolute moron, correct?
For one all ‘communist’ fiefdoms around the world could unite, instead of ruling their own pseudo monarchies. Not a single one of them would set aside their power in favor of a true revolution.
Exactly, hence why those making ‘cOmMuNiSm oNlY wOrKs On PaPeR’ arguments and this meme are actually about socialist states which is what I am defending in my first comment, that is blatantly clear from context
Nah not really. I mean China is clearly blatantly capitalist since Deng Xiaoping. And there was little ownership of the means of production by the prolitariat in Soviet Russia.
I’m not going to get into a pedantic debate with you about the exact labelling of the ideology of these states, what is important and you’re intentionally being obtuse about is that these systems differ(ed) from bourgeois western liberal ‘democracy’ and is the subject of the meme being discussed
We’re all aware of that. The transitionary step of socialism has had many well documented successes, along with setbacks and things to learn from.
The issues with capitalism are also well known. Industrial capitalism does a good job at developing the productive forces, but neoliberal (financial) capitalism serves no purpose other than to funnell money to the very top of the economic elite.
The problem with those transitory step countries is that it has a ruling class with very different class interests and the same money funneling just like in a capitalist state which basically guarantees that they will never be socialist.
You see no difference in a government made to be a mediating entity between private interests where the source of power lies, and a government that’s self interested and is where power lies? You see nothing but a flattened “they both did taxes and the leadership class has privileges”?
No, taxes are quite helpful to maintain public infrastructure for example. What I’m saying is that every time one of those transitory governments have popped up the leadership ends up ruling the population with an iron fist and horrible corruption that has benefitted mostly the ruling party and rarely anyone else. Pretty much exactly like a capitalist state but with gulags and no voting.
the leadership ends up ruling the population with an iron fist and horrible corruption that has benefitted mostly the ruling party and rarely anyone else
On the second point you’re so wrong it requires no discussion. In the 20th and 21st centuries the countries that had the greatest reduction of poverty in the world are the USSR and the PRC respectively. Whatever definition of ‘corruption’ you have, the fact that those governments not only benefited their people but benefited them more than any other nation on the planet is not a debatable point.
So what exactly do you mean “iron fist”? Are you from the US? Because if you’re saying it from the perspective of the most intrusive surveillance state in history and the largest police state in history, I feel like we’re going to have to sort our semantics.
I’m from one of the countries the USSR did their imperialism on so I’m definitely going to take issue with your assertion that they benefitted their people more than any other country. They benefitted the people in Russia by draining resources from satellite states.
By iron fist I mean the people who spoke out against their regime were either executed outright, worked to death or near death. And by corruption I mean any wealth went straight into the pockets of party leaders and members.
Also why does everyone who defend the USSR go into US bad dialogue tree instantly? Like I really don’t give shit about the US and I’m sure it’s bad too, but that completely irrelevant. At least the US doesn’t generally outright annex countries to do imperialism.
NPC DIALOGUE TREE BEEP BOOP SELECT OPTION: WHINE WHATABOUTISM AND IGNORE THE QUESTION
Fucking clown.
And BIG IF you actually are from a former soviet satellite you’re either over 80 years old or you don’t know shit better than anyone else based on “I live here”
Yeah and I hear shit from people who live in South Carolina about the Civil War all the time.
Wow, you spent most of your post complaining I ignored a question I didn’t ignore while ignoring half my points. Impressive. If you missed my answer to “what about US” it was that I don’t care, both are bad.
Also you need to be 40 to remember life under Soviet rule. And my grandparents are well over 80 and they do remember the mass deportations personally.
Like, the “iron fist” rule as you call it can be debated till the end of time, both the degree to which the characterization is true versus western propaganda/idealism as well as the degree to which it might be necessary to survive the omnipresent fascist and capitalist counterevolutionary movements, both external and internal.
Buuuuuut literacy rates, cost of living, infant mortality, income equality, life expectancy, gender equality, etc, these all tended to drastically improve in socialist states, compared to pre-socialism (and especially post-socialism when looking at the many states that were violently overthrown and liberalized).
I get it. My point is different. Communism has never been realized, therefore there’s nothing to say about it’s functionality.
Systems-by-whatever-name led by communist parties work.
That’s fine if you think that, but it’s not really communism, as defined by Marx.
That’s the point, they are not communist states, just people misusing the name communism
How does Marx define communism?
Well in the full extend you could read das Kapital, or an abridged version of it.
But the remedy that he seeks is an international uprising against the possessive class and the dissolution of the power of capital. Unfortunately every ‘communist’ state is just an autocratic state role-playing communism. Sometimes with their own monarchy (north Korea) some more oppressive, some outright capitalist (China).
You realize that it’s called Marxism-Leninism correct? Because Lenin and by extension other writers expanded on this topic to clown on “communism purists” like you.
That’s what it’s called because Stalin enthusiasts somehow dislike the term stalinism, which it is. Marx has nothing to do with it.
You know, I was going to make a long detailed post about how that’s wrong, but I just can’t.
It’s so hilariously wrong and asinine that it’s comical. You have never before opened a book in your life, or hell, even bothered to Google anything about what you just said.
Please, you do realize when you say things like this without having a clue what you’re talking about, that you look like an absolute moron, correct?
yes, and what is a post-revolution state supposed to do while waiting for the rest of the world?
For one all ‘communist’ fiefdoms around the world could unite, instead of ruling their own pseudo monarchies. Not a single one of them would set aside their power in favor of a true revolution.
“fiefdoms”??? Do you hear yourself speak lol
Exactly, hence why those making ‘cOmMuNiSm oNlY wOrKs On PaPeR’ arguments and this meme are actually about socialist states which is what I am defending in my first comment, that is blatantly clear from context
Nah not really. I mean China is clearly blatantly capitalist since Deng Xiaoping. And there was little ownership of the means of production by the prolitariat in Soviet Russia.
So not really communist.
I’m not going to get into a pedantic debate with you about the exact labelling of the ideology of these states, what is important and you’re intentionally being obtuse about is that these systems differ(ed) from bourgeois western liberal ‘democracy’ and is the subject of the meme being discussed
What? What’s your source for this?
We’re all aware of that. The transitionary step of socialism has had many well documented successes, along with setbacks and things to learn from.
The issues with capitalism are also well known. Industrial capitalism does a good job at developing the productive forces, but neoliberal (financial) capitalism serves no purpose other than to funnell money to the very top of the economic elite.
The problem with those transitory step countries is that it has a ruling class with very different class interests and the same money funneling just like in a capitalist state which basically guarantees that they will never be socialist.
You see no difference in a government made to be a mediating entity between private interests where the source of power lies, and a government that’s self interested and is where power lies? You see nothing but a flattened “they both did taxes and the leadership class has privileges”?
No, taxes are quite helpful to maintain public infrastructure for example. What I’m saying is that every time one of those transitory governments have popped up the leadership ends up ruling the population with an iron fist and horrible corruption that has benefitted mostly the ruling party and rarely anyone else. Pretty much exactly like a capitalist state but with gulags and no voting.
On the second point you’re so wrong it requires no discussion. In the 20th and 21st centuries the countries that had the greatest reduction of poverty in the world are the USSR and the PRC respectively. Whatever definition of ‘corruption’ you have, the fact that those governments not only benefited their people but benefited them more than any other nation on the planet is not a debatable point.
So what exactly do you mean “iron fist”? Are you from the US? Because if you’re saying it from the perspective of the most intrusive surveillance state in history and the largest police state in history, I feel like we’re going to have to sort our semantics.
I’m from one of the countries the USSR did their imperialism on so I’m definitely going to take issue with your assertion that they benefitted their people more than any other country. They benefitted the people in Russia by draining resources from satellite states. By iron fist I mean the people who spoke out against their regime were either executed outright, worked to death or near death. And by corruption I mean any wealth went straight into the pockets of party leaders and members.
Also why does everyone who defend the USSR go into US bad dialogue tree instantly? Like I really don’t give shit about the US and I’m sure it’s bad too, but that completely irrelevant. At least the US doesn’t generally outright annex countries to do imperialism.
Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Mexico. Also the US has over 800 military bases around the world.
Fucking clown.
And BIG IF you actually are from a former soviet satellite you’re either over 80 years old or you don’t know shit better than anyone else based on “I live here”
Yeah and I hear shit from people who live in South Carolina about the Civil War all the time.
Wow, you spent most of your post complaining I ignored a question I didn’t ignore while ignoring half my points. Impressive. If you missed my answer to “what about US” it was that I don’t care, both are bad.
Also you need to be 40 to remember life under Soviet rule. And my grandparents are well over 80 and they do remember the mass deportations personally.
Gulags
Cue laugh track
That is a childlike (and false) understanding of the world. Please educate yourself.
Like, the “iron fist” rule as you call it can be debated till the end of time, both the degree to which the characterization is true versus western propaganda/idealism as well as the degree to which it might be necessary to survive the omnipresent fascist and capitalist counterevolutionary movements, both external and internal.
Buuuuuut literacy rates, cost of living, infant mortality, income equality, life expectancy, gender equality, etc, these all tended to drastically improve in socialist states, compared to pre-socialism (and especially post-socialism when looking at the many states that were violently overthrown and liberalized).
And why is that?