It’s lemmygrad, we’re the spectre. I’d bet at least half of the other instances out there block us, there’s only like 300 dedicated users on this instance, and they still can’t stop complaining about lemmygrad/tankies
It’s lemmygrad, we’re the spectre. I’d bet at least half of the other instances out there block us, there’s only like 300 dedicated users on this instance, and they still can’t stop complaining about lemmygrad/tankies
I haven't heard of you yet, what are they complaining about? I've only heard complaints about Nazis and fascists
Can’t tell if this is supposed to be a “tankie red fash lol” dig but I’ll take it in good faith anyways.
We uphold socialism here, not that socialist states are/were perfect places, but that they are/were legitimate attempts at building worker states, and demonstrably improved the lives of their citizens. Liberals (we use that to mean anyone from a nordic soc dem to moderate republican, or even unserious anarchists) really really don’t like this. The accuse us of “genocide denial” or just being “delusional” for questioning the dominant western narrative
It doesn't help that there really is nuance in discussing previous and current socialist experiments but even that has practically become a meme and is met with "communism has never worked" commentary from liberals.
Exactly, often times we just give up because liberals constantly make bad faith arguments, so we just respond with goofy “stalin did nothing wrong” memes
I'm actually working through some thoughts on how to even explain that there is bad and good in these systems. But unless you have a good understanding of history, theory, or even dialectics(which I don't quite yet) it's really tough to do without resorting to whataboitism. At least for me it is. A common point that I see brought up on the left, and I think it's a good argument, but when the black book of communism number of 1 gorbillian dead get brought up, you can easily argue that you can calculate 100 million excessive deaths every 10 years in the US as a counterpoint but I think we can all agree that excessive deaths are bad regardless. Well unless they are fascists of course.
This was one of the hardest parts of my transition to socialism, finding good information that didn't require a doctorates degree in history and/or philosophy. The S4A podcast has been running for years and is just now getting to the end of their "introduction to Marxism" series.... Like, you can't expect most people to do this...
After buying a number of books I am making my way through them and they are fascinating. But it did require me to self-investigate and open my mind a lot, and read a lot, to decide to study further.
The nuance is so strong and so many people have been taught bad information that it's hard to even begin a good conversation, so we resort to jokes because at least we can get a laugh out of it. I've dumped walls of text, and gotten some good results, some bad results.
I've been on the lookout for short/easy introductions that aren't in-your-face-about-it (Worked for me, but not for everyone). There's no reason to pander unnecessarily, but to provide reasoned arguments in short-form, to plant the seed of information that could bring someone out of their propaganda. I guess the biggest problem is just getting past the initial ichy feeling most people have when the word "communism" is thrown out.
I think for me it started with just anti-capitalism, and US military actions that were obviously against our "core values". But that's not enough for everyone.
I am also working on a short list that I can recommend so once I am at home and can type them up we can compare notes maybe lol. I'm trying to find books that aren't super dense but still cover all that needs to be to get the point across. For example, I had an easier time with Principles than I did with the Manifesto because Principles reads a lot like it was written recently. Still read the Manifesto tho, ya know?
I've found myself also starting to attempt to explain things in simple terms and idk where that even came from. Understanding how Marx developed his ideas for Marxism from a philosophical perspective is crucial I think but damm is it tough at times.
And yeah you can describe socialism or communism to quite a few people and not call it those words and they tend to jive with it but as soon as you drop the C or S word it's all over. I work closely with a local Dem club where I'm at(I know still liberals but a lot of them seem to mean well, and a few of them do knowy views) but a few weeks ago socialism got brought up and 2 of these older dudes started in on how "socialism has never worked" and without skipping a beat one said we need to go back to aggressively taxing the super rich. Same set of people want M4A, affordable healthcare and school and all the other stuff and I'm like yeah that's kind of socialism my dudes. And again, their is even nuance to what actually is socialism in that context but you get it.
US capitalism isn't working, so there's that as a counter point lol
Oh, US capitalism is working exactly as intended. They just lie about what was intended.
In the minds of some, we communists are apparently one and the same with fascists.
But the reason there are so few out and out fascists on Lemmy is exactly because it's a communist project, and we were the biggest instance before the reddit exode. They actually discussed this on reddit in some of the more reactionary subs and decided it wasn't worth getting on lemmy because of this.
What do you mean when you say it's a communist project?
I think this lib's reaction will give you an idea of how based the devs are.
It's an instance for Communists, specifically Communists who support AES (actually existing socialism). In short, we think that the USSR and PRC (among others), while not perfect, were legitimate attempts at building Socialism and better than Capitalism as it exists in the West.
Other people don't like that because, to them, Stalin was just Red Hitler and Xi Jinping is literally committing a genocide right now. Neither are true.
Ah okay I can see how that's controversial, given China is heavy on censorship and control, and in reality they're just another form of capitalism run by a rich oligarchy. Plus with the way the world has changed, I think a new system is needed because we're heading towards enough automation that not everyone should need to work.
I don't know much about the USSR so I won't comment on that
China is not run by a rich ogliarchy. source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIOg_K6Z1fg
I approve of the source, however disagree with the conclusions
Ok but in all honestly, just because there are rich people in China doesn't mean it's a 'capitalist ogliarchy'. Sure, there are billionaires in the party, but they have just as much power as any farmer or worker, no more and no less.
That's not true in the slightest though? I mean the very fact that there are different wages, there's poverty, China invests heavily in foreign companies (both the government and private Chinese corporations), that's all capitalism. The farmer doesn't have any say in what tencent or the China Evergrande Group does. The CCP controls the media and limits free speech, and makes decisions for everyone. Even if you're to somehow convince me that the people who control the CCP aren't rich oligarchs, they're absolutely still in control of the CCP, and it's not communism.
Oh my god there are companies, guess there's no more socialism guys!1!1!!1
Just because there are companies does not mean that China is revisionist. And Tencent and China Evergrande have nothing to do with the government. Why would they?
edit: What do different wages have to do with socialism? Also it's CPC, not CCP.
We're talking about communism here not socialism, I didn't say China doesn't have socialism
I'm confused. Do you expect China to be instantly fully communist without money or class? Do you know that China started as a poor and feudal country and has constantly been under pressure and sanctions from the west?
It's like giving you control of an island full of people with almost no food and enemies thirsting to attack at any moment. Go on, build communism.
No, I'm saying China is a capitalist oligarchy. Currently, right now. I don't believe it can ever become communism with the current people still in power. That can be debatable, but what they are right now is definitely not communism, and that's all I was saying
Yes, it's not communism right now. But Xi Jinping is not a 'capitalist oligarch'. And China has pulled millions out of poverty, build an advanced public transport system, given massive amounts of aid to third-world countries while helping them develop, and has cracked down on corruption. If this is a 'capitalist oligarchy' then I will gladly support it.
I mean, I would also call the US a capitalist oligarchy, wouldn't call Biden an oligarch, and would say they've done the same in the past, so yeah I would still call it that personally. That's generally how industrialisation under capitalism goes. I'd even go as far as to say the US and UK had a lot of influence on it getting where it is in the first place, and it's very difficult to do trade with the west in this world without shifting towards capitalism. (Not impossible, but difficult)
Edit: In the definition of oligarchy, a small group of people hold power. I take that as relatively small, so maybe I'm mis using the term. Aristocracy might be a better term, but it's somewhere in the middle
The US has not eliminated poverty. Where did you get that from? In addition, the US has done nothing to help 3rd world countries at all, only to exploit them for resources. Before you say that's what China is doing too, it's not.
I did not say the US eliminated poverty and you didn't say China has eliminated poverty?
The US has indeed exploited countries for resources, but that does mean they haven't also helped in some cases, even if it's a minority of cases
China has eliminated poverty. And China helped in every case, while the US exploited in every case. I don't see how those two are similar.
You're splitting hairs at this point, I don't understand why
How is that "splitting hairs"? If I go to your house and help you build it, is that really the same as blasting it down with explosives?
No, I'm saying you took one small piece of what I said and latched on to it. Let's say the US has never helped another country before for sake of argument. It doesn't change the fact that I see both countries as capitalist aristocracies
Even if China is a capitalist aristocracy, it's done mostly good for the world. Besides, having rich people does not make a country an aristocracy.
I did not say having rich people makes a country an aristocracy, not did I say China has done no good for the world. You assumed that.
Alright, so your point is that China is run by capitalists, therefore it is revisionist and not true communism?
here
My point is that China has a capitalist market economy, and therefore it's not communism. Nothing to do with revisionism. Li's definition of capitalism seems to be narrow, I know it as the ability to own the means of production. If you can own a private company in China, and if that company can profit off of the work of people working for wages, I consider that capitalism. Xu Jiayin of Evergrande Group absolutely benefits from the work of people below him, and they are exchanging their labor for less than it generates. If you consider that to be a feature of communism, then we must have different definitions of communism
It's not communism, yes. But China is on the way to communism, and with what has happened already I am confident it will carry through.
In my country like three completely unnacountable megacorporations control the media and limit free speech. The CPC at least gives a shit about public health and safety
I don't remember being consulted on the decision to invade Iraq, continue the illegal blockade of Cuba, send missiles to Nazis in Ukraine, make food twice as expensive, have the sky turn blood red from fire every couple years, be watched by police snipers at a football game, live in an endless pandemic, or drink microplastics for the rest of my life.