• Sploosh the Water@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not interested in any political system where I can’t criticize the ruling party without fearing for my or my family’s safety or permanently becoming unable to find employment anywhere except coal/steel plants working 12-14/hours straight 6 days a week for piss wages…

      • Sploosh the Water@vlemmy.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m an anarchist, I’m against the USA model as much as the Chinese model.

        But lol, yeah sorry, not interested in being forced to conform by a hierarchy of “leaders” who have no inherent right to do so in the name of “society” or some vague idea of the greater good/social contract.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              What communists accomplished in USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all successes of communism, even if they don’t fit with your ideals. All of these revolutions have resulted in huge tangible improvements in the standard of living for the people, and created far more egalitarian societies than anything seen under capitalism.

              • Akasazh@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Not really successes at all if you’ve read your Marx.

                All of them followed in Stalins ‘leninistic’ (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).

                The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Having read my Marx, I know that Marx realized that Leninistic approach would be necessary to create a socialist state. This is the key disagreement Marx had with anarchists. Furthermore, it’s obvious that when the world is dominated by a capitalist hegemon, socialist states exist under siege. The fact that you equate socialist states with monarchism shows profound lack of understanding of the subject you’re debating.

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

                    Doesn’t north Korea’s dynastic autocratic rule appear slightly monarchistic to you? Autocratic would be a better word than monarchistic in general.

                    But there isn’t a single ‘communist’ state where the prolitariat do the ruling

          • Sploosh the Water@vlemmy.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago
            1. Fallacious argument. Just because something hasn’t been successful before or people don’t see how to make it work doesn’t justify an existing unethical/immoral system. Plenty of people thought it was crazy to imagine a world where slavery wasn’t a thing. That didn’t justify continuing that system though.

            2. There are many of examples of anarchist or pseudo-anarchist communities that exist. Many Shaolin monastic communities are anarchistic, and egalitarian depending on the sect. Some Mennonite and old world Amish communities are anarchistic also, having only collective property and some personal property, no privatization.

            Some first nations tribes were pseudo-anarchist, operating as a collective with egalitarian leadership based largely on life experience and wisdom, they maintained completely voluntary relationships with other tribes in the region and had no private property.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not a fallacious argument at all. When people keep trying to do something for over a century and have nothing to show for it, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that it can work. If you tell me that walking sucks because you can flap your arms and fly much faster, then you have to demonstrate that it’s actually possible to do.

              Communists have built successful communist states that liberated millions of people from capitalist oppression, provided them with education, food, housing, and jobs. These are real tangible improvements that are possible following the communist model.

              Anarchists have never achieved any sort of liberation at scale, and these pseudo-anarchist communities don’t translate into systemic change in society.