come @ me lemmy liberals
You know I think the only ones that will are the six or seven chronic users who peaked at using tankie as a pejorative, and half of them fucked off to piefed to insulate themselves from further interaction.
i’m grateful they left. lemmy feels much better already.
It’s kinda funny in some ways when they still come back. Only in the way of seeing how they can’t handle anything outside of their talking points. Or the one who seems to be as intelligent as that influencer who did the MN daycare stories
I like your attitude, but no one is right all the time. I bet you burnt a pizza once. RIP your pizza
Removed by mod
Go back to reddit.
22·17 小时前Reddit banned communists, so communist made a reddit alternative (lemmy.) Reddit then continued to ban comumunists, so they went to the communist reddit alternative. That’s why there are communists in the communist reddit alternative.
Pretty much!
Yall can have it. I just dont know how it ended up in my feed.
Oh noes! You wouldn’t want to have your misconceptions challenged, you had better run along now.
Either you subscribed to our meme community, or were browsing by All, either one would show you this. It isn’t really “your feed.”
I don’t know, how?
Someone was being cheeky with the starter packages probably.
Couldn’t even get the image right. Atlas bore not the earth, but the sky.
Have you never seen any depiction of Atlas?
Any systems of government run by people in a time of resource limits, and when money is still in wide use, will inevitably become corrupt.
Once we can have anything we want, whenever we want, then maybe we’ll be free.
It’s better for the working classes to control the state, even if corruption exists and must be actively suppressed.
The reality is that “leadership” is NOT a working class. It has power and authority over the society it leads, and power corrupts. Democracy is the only hope for society right now because it is the only form of government that has regular replacement of leadership built in.
However, the corrupting influence of money, controlled by the mega rich, will never go away, no matter what system of government you choose.
I’ll say it again, take humans out of critical leadership positions and get rid of money.
This line of thinking is idealist and deeply unserious “baby leftism”.
“Just remove leadership” and “get rid of money” is not a political program. It’s a slogan. Every class society has leadership and structures of power. The real question is which class controls them, and through what institutions.
Leadership is not automatically a separate class. Under socialism, leadership is supposed to be subordinated to proletarian power through party discipline, mass supervision, and state control over capital. Corruption is a contradiction of the socialist transition period, not proof that the entire project is invalid. Treating it that way is infantile.
Look at the CPC. They openly recognize corruption as a systemic danger and run continuous anti-corruption campaigns that jail and execute billionaires, senior officials, and generals. Compare that to liberal “democracies,” where corruption is legalized via lobbying and campaign finance and a blind eye being turned when those already blurred lines are crossed.
Take Jack Ma. When he tried to push aggressive financialization that would have subordinated productive industry to speculative capital, he was disciplined and his empire was reined in. In the United States, the same behavior is rewarded, normalized, and expanded. Finance capital literally writes policy.
In socialism, capital is constrained by the state; in capitalism, the state is owned by capital.
Saying “democracy is the only hope” without asking democracy for which class is pure liberal abstraction. Bourgeois democracy just rotates which capitalist is managing the country. It does not challenge capital itself.
And “remove humans from leadership”? That’s tech-utopian nonsense. Machines don’t resolve class contradictions. Only organized masses do.
Yes, money corrupts. Yes, corruption exists. Marxists already understand this. The answer isn’t abolishing government by decree, it’s proletarian state power, continuous class struggle, mass line, and strict control over capital during the transition to communism.
Reducing all this to “power corrupts, therefore everything is invalid” is not serious. It’s just nihilist bullshit.
Removed by mod
Everyone who disagrees with me is AI and other arguments for the massively propagandised
Not at all. I have to deal with a lot of AI generated slop, and the first half of your reply had a distinctly AI slop sound to it. That’s why I gave my reply then only mentioned the AI bit at the very end.
I have to deal with a lot of AI generated slop, and the first half of your reply had a distinctly AI slop sound to it.
You should probably stop having chatGPT write your responses for you, because I’m not the same user.
That’s why I gave my reply then only mentioned the AI bit at the very end.
It didn’t seem like it was written by AI at all. You’re just being willfully obstinate because someone disagrees with you and that must mean there’s something wrong with them. Next you’re gonna go crying about russian bots or some similar shit.
I’m calling big chunks of your response AI gen’d, which suggests a wish to win an argument rather than comprehend reality.
Someone is trying to educate you out of your wild idealism and you’re being an obstinate asshole
Wow bot jacketing me instead of actually contending with anything I have to say. unfortunately not the first time.
Corruption is not caused by “power” in the abstract. It’s produced by class relations and ownership of production. Every class society has authority, the issue is which class controls it. That is until class society is abolished on a global scale, but that’s so far in the future acting like it’s the next step is infantile and ridiculous.
Saying “no system handles corruption better than another” is just blatantly false. Under the Communist Party of China, billionaires and senior officials are regularly investigated, removed, and jailed. In capitalist states, corruption is legalized and encouraged pointing this out isn’t exceptionalism I’m not sure you know what that word means. Is it exceptionalism to say that liberal democracy handles representation of the people better than feudalism? Obviously not that’s ridiculous.
I’ll give the same example again as you skipped over it to bot jacket me. Jack Ma was disciplined for pushing US-style financialization. In the United States, that same behavior is rewarded and institutionalized.
“Get rid of money” without explaining how you suppress bourgeois forces, organize production, and defend society during transition is not a program, it’s a slogan. Repeating this again from earlier: money like the state only withers away after classes are abolished far in the future.
Corruption is a known contradiction of the socialist transition period. It does not delegitimize the socialist project it simply proves continuous class struggle and anti-corruption campaigns are necessary hence their implementation in socialist states under communist parties.
Where you complain about “hierarchy” you’re just doing vague “human-nature” metaphysics. This is idealism and is about as reliable as scripture for analysis.
Look I don’t want to be mean (even if I find you to be unduly arrogant and condescending and I really don’t appreciate the bot jacketing), however these comments reek of Euro-American left liberalism. All vibes no dialectical or historical materialism or really any serious analysis at all.
You effectively do the “human nature” bit which is idealist metaphysics bullshit and you really seem to lack any understanding of any leftist theory.
You really should consider studying scientific socialism and deconstructing your liberal foundations. Vibes are not analysis and that’s all you have for now. If you want I can recommend you some books/articles that can help you but I have a feeling you disagree with my framing of you.
I don’t pretend to know everything about Leftist theory, but it doesn’t seem complicated. Also, I’m from the UK, where things different enough from the US that it is worth mentioning.
I don’t care for any governmental system that exists now. They are all based on state control of individual freedoms. I am essentially an Anarchist, but with “protection from a distance” meaning something automated and trusted that protects people from harm and control by others, while allowing everyone to do as they please. I realise this is a futuristic fantasy but it is worth aiming for imho.
Before I critique communism further I want to make it clear that I know western democracies are corrupt, some extremely so, and that corruption is driven by the super rich. (Oil, tech, arms, other evil shit).
The nature of corruption is very different between western Democracy and communism. In the west it mostly goes public (and not much gets done about it apparently), but changes are made and things do generally improve in the long term. In china it is all done behind closed doors, and is about protecting bureaucracies. For me the "public vs “private” behaviour is the most important difference. When issues are public is there a chance for the public to have a voice, but when it’s all behind closed doors what chance do the public have?
Also, it is about individual freedoms to do and say what you like without fear of state interference, which communist states don’t have a good reputation for. I’m sure you can think of a few subjects you can’t discuss in China. Why is that? What subjects can’t you discuss in the UK?
Granted, right now western culture is going through a period of hyper conservatism with freedoms being oppressed, but this is a battle ground with voices from every corner speaking out, which is impossible in a communist state. How would this be dealt with in China? Either way, I am hopeful this too shall pass, and we’ll move away from the extremes of capitalism (once the current generation of old people die off)
Regarding my idealism around getting rid of money. T I know this is a problem we can’t solve today, but I don’t think it’s far away This is a side topic for another post I feel. I’ll write up my thoughts and post it.
“I don’t pretend to know everything about leftist theory,”
This goes so far beyond that. You don’t even know the basics. What you’re doing is building a house of cards out of vibes on top of an ingrained liberal foundation. There’s no material or really any serious analysis across any of your comments, just assumptions about “power,” “freedom,” and “human nature” that you’ve inherited from Western ideology and never seriously interrogated. You think it’s simple because you’ve taken a vibes first approach to it as opposed to doing any study which might challenge your comfort.
If you’re British, German, American it doesn’t matter you are situated in the imperial core reaping the rewards of imperialism. You received concessions from the bourgeoisie to keep you from seriously challenging the largest most advanced immiseration machine in human history. Hence I used the term Euro-American. I could also just say white/western “leftist” or shitlib or radlib or whatever other word for privileged member of the imperial core it doesn’t really change much . Your class interest is aligned with the imperialist empire and in direct opposition to the oppressed of the world. You should read Settlers and Imperialism the highest stage of capitalism
Then you try to lecture me(someone actually from and living in China) about how corruption is handled here, and you’re simply wrong. Anti-corruption trials are public. Everyone knows about them. Officials, executives, generals(people right up to the very top) are investigated, removed, and jailed under the Communist Party of China. In the West, corruption is largely legalized through lobbying, revolving doors, and finance. And even when the line is crossed, it’s usually overlooked as long as it doesn’t threaten the moneyed class.
You also claim things “generally improve in the long term” in the West. Improve for whom? Whatever social-democratic gains Europe and the US had were built on and sustained by imperialism and neocolonial extraction. Euro-American countries raped and looted the periphery for centuries to fund the “treats” you now point to as progress at home. Meanwhile, without plundering the Global South, China alone lifted nearly a billion people out of poverty through planned socialist development. While your comfort was subsidized by other people’s misery.
Your fixation on “individual freedoms” just confirms to me your liberal foundation that you refuse to reckon with. You’re poisoned by hyper-individualism. You talk about freedom as personal expression divorced from class power, ownership, housing, healthcare, or production. That’s just consumer ideology. You don’t seem to understand that collective material conditions matter more than abstract personal liberty. Reactionaries and bourgeoisie current should be repressed, they should not have the freedom to exploit others.
And on “free speech”: you seriously overestimate how free it is in the West. Read Inventing Reality by Michael Parenti. He explains in a way that should be easy for you as a beginner to understand how media ownership and elite filtering manufacture topics and angles long before anything reaches public debate. Look at what’s happening right now: protesters arrested and brutalised en masse across Europe and the US, specific to your location Palestine Action being designated a terrorist organization in the UK, and in Germany open criticism of Israel being criminalized. So spare me the fairy tale about open discourse. You’re allowed to talk, as long as it doesn’t threaten capital or the empire but don’t forget who’s holding the reigns it’s not the people.
Finally, coming back to your “no hierarchy + automation + abolish money soon” vision, it avoids every serious question: how do you suppress bourgeois forces, organize production, defend society, and prevent capital from reasserting itself? You don’t answer any of that. You just gesture toward a futuristic fantasy. Marxists have already long addressed this: money and the state only wither away after global class abolition. Pretending we can skip the transition period is utopian fantasy. Try read Socialism: Utopian and Scientific and Critique of the Gotha Programme
Administration is not a class in and of itself, either capitalists control the state or the working classes control the state. Power isn’t some supernatural corruptive force, either. Further, socialist countries are the only genuinely democratic countries, replacing leadership isn’t a sign of democracy, but instability and dissatisfaction with government. I don’t think you actually know what we communists are talking about, and you’re trapped in idealist and metaphysical thinking.
I’ll admit I am thinking in idealistic terms, but that is the point. I believe in punching through your targets, and not just settle for the “best of a job lot”. I hope for a society that can move beyond the types of government we’ve seen so far.
Power always corrupts. Some individuals are able to avoid this but organised groups never can. Maybe some groups are more altruistic in their goals, initially at least, but the longer they exist the more self preservationist they become. This is basic human behaviour.
I disagree with your conclusion that replacing leadership is a bad thing. If a society (communist or not) is not satisfied with the performance of its leaders they should be replaced. The power to replace leaders must be in the hands of the people, not as an exception but as routine. However, I don’t know of a communist government that allows this, unless I’ve misunderstood?
I don’t mean idealist as in having ideals, I mean it as you using supernatural causes for explanation. Power is not a supernatural corrupting force. Of course, everyone seeks to act in their own interest, but organization does not turn people evil.
I disagree with your conclusion that replacing leadership is a bad thing.
The ability to replace individual leaders is a good thing, and is a common factor in socialist countries. Having high turnover in leadership is a bad thing, as it means dissatisfaction and instability.
You are right, power is not a super natural force. However, the psychological impact of power is very real and well understood. The evidence of our own experiences should be enough to tell you this. Also, there are countless psychology experiments demonstrating the corrupting influence of power, which often boils down self-preservation through a continued hold on power. People will make up any old bullshit to justify why they should in power.
The degree of corruption varies between individuals and the level of responsibility they have, but once you bring people into groups it becomes unavoidable. Public transparency and oversight is about the only thing that can constrain it.
You’re treating it like a supernatural force, though, and further socialist countries do have public transparency and oversight, so you’re drawing a false comparison. People’s lived existence determines their thought, there isn’t an inherent aspect of having managerial duties that turns people evil or “corrupt.”
there are very few liberals on .ml lol
“Lemmy” in the subject meaning, presumably, the broader lemmy, not Lemmy.ml in particular.
Thankfully!
Authoritarian Dictatorships famously never become corrupt after all
Authoritarian does not mean anything. Dictatorship is the democratic domination of one group over all others. A dictatorship of the proletariat is inherently more democratic and less corrupt than a dictatorship of the bourgeoise.
Capitalist dictatorship (IE liberal / bourgeios “democracy”) by definition is corrupt, in that it is a form of goverment where propertied and rich interests control the country, to the detriment of its exploited workers, who have no say or representation in their government. You’re “free” to yell into the void as long as your complaints don’t affect anything, at which point your movement will be crushed violently.
Its pure projection that liberals call every other form of government that challenges their rule a “dictatorship”, and rely on decades of ingrained anti-communist cold-war propaganda to cement it.
Unfortunately many people accept their propaganda willingly without challenging the cold-war dogma, or looking into how actually or previously existing socialist states had functional, substantive democracy, not the fake “democracy in name only” that liberal countries are selling you.
I never said that I was a liberal. If anything, I consider myself a market socialist since anything needed to survive shouldn’t be comdified for capital.
I’m simply saying that giving one man absolute power whether it be political or through wealth will inevitably lead to corruption. After all, the meme states that tankies are “always right”, and I’m assuming that by tankie they mean the authoritarian left like Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
Here is a declassified internal CIA memo from 1956 that literally says Stalin did not have absolute power and people who think he did don’t understand the Soviet system
The idea that socialist heads of state are kings is ludicrous and ahistorical, a product of western movies and TV during and after the red scares
I’m simply saying that giving one man absolute power whether it be political
This is standard anti-communist propaganda that unfortunately happens to work on gullible people. It’s related to medieval era witch hunting, where you:
- Create a legend of a supremely evil / nefarious thing, you want to demonize. IE the devil, leaders of revolutionary movements like Robespierre, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, etc.
- Claim that all people are under the dominion of this sole power, which removes their humanity, and ability to reason or think like you do.
- Carry out societal-wide demonization and extermination campaigns, to terrorize any potential sympathizers.
Its a really effective tactic that lets you blame a single entity, encourages conformity and intentional ignorance, lets westerners ignore the functioning democracies of socialist states, and the mass movements that supported these various leaders.
I never said that I was a liberal. If anything, I consider myself a market socialist since anything needed to survive shouldn’t be comdified for capital.
If I were to be cheeky, I’d say that market socialism is still liberalism. There’s a difference between a Socialist Market Economy, like the PRC, and market socialism. In a socialist market economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while diverse forms of ownership account for small and medium firms, including cooperatives and private ownership. In market socialism, cooperatives form the principle aspect, and as such it is largely weak to the same mechanisms as capitalism.
I’m simply saying that giving one man absolute power whether it be political or through wealth will inevitably lead to corruption. After all, the meme states that tankies are “always right”, and I’m assuming that by tankie they mean the authoritarian left like Stalinism, Maoism, etc.
Neither Stalin nor Mao had absolute power, though. Both the USSR and China under Mao were democratic. For China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
For the USSR, it was quite similar. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.
By “tankie,” OP essentially means anyone that recognizes existing socialist states as valid. This includes the majority of Marxists.
“Market” Socialism is not necessary. Socialism pursues a dictatorship of the proletariat, not the total eradication of the bourgeoise. This means that socialism has to have some form of private ownership and thus some form of market.
I don’t see why you believe socialist democracies to be inherently more corrupt than capitalist “democracies.”
I believe that the meme I was responding to referred to “tankies” always being right, which would mean communist, not socialist.
Socialism is not an end point. It is the transitionary phase between capitalism and communism.
Yep, thank you.
Communism is post-socialist, and has not existed yet.
could you define authoritarianism for the class? you may be as brief or extensive as you wish. the floor is yours, democracy crusader.
…A profit driven government that consolidates power and resources under a single figure-head and their keys to power at the expense of the common people, is an authoritarian state. Or if you’d rather the super simple watered down version: A government that serves itself, and not the people it is supposedly established to govern.
If you have a King who puts into place policy that creates wealth, safety, and comforts for his people; that’s a king, not an authoritarian dictator.
If you have a King who puts into place policy that takes away wealth, safety, and comfort for his people for his own agenda; that’s tyranny, a tyrant, and an authoritarian dictatorship.
This is just how I understand it. Though I am super excited to see your argument otherwise!
If you have a King who puts into place policy that creates wealth, safety, and comforts for his people; that’s a king, not an authoritarian dictator.
So an absolute monarchy will vacillate between being authoritarian and not based solely on the moral character of the particular king in power, even though the system remains the same?
Yes, Monarchy describes the method of passing rulership. Authoritarian deacribes the style of ruling.
Monarchy describes a type of government in which the leadership generally rests in one person, and that person is generally chosen based on heredity.
Authoritarian describes a style of governing in which the ruler and ruling class have little regard for human rights and freedoms, often employing a type of police state with high levels of control on individual behavior.
A monarchy could be authoritarian, or a monarchy could be fairly liberal and allow a lot of personal freedoms and self rule.
An authoritarian government could be a monarchy, or it could be a dictatorship, oligarchy, or even a type of democracy. Typically individuals don’t like living under authoritarian systems so typically they don’t last long under truly free democracy. But since authoritarians often crack down on opposition, the press, and freedom of assembly it is possible for them sometimes to maintain power across elections.
Then that definition doesn’t apply to the socialist states that “tankies” support, so the original comment doesn’t make sense.
Gonna be honest, I have no idea what a “tankie” is at this point. I know what it used to mean, but what it means now is beyond me. I’ve had several people give very different definitions, and none of them were “communists that supported Krushchev sending tanks into Hungary”.
Its basically just “any leftist I don’t like” at this point. Not really any different from “woke”.
Some arrogant western supremacist ultralefts use it to distance themselves from existing socialist states / attempts, but nowadays liberals will call even these ultralefts “tankies” for having the temerity to stand against Israel’s genocide. Its just a term to punch left.
says the mod banning leftists for being critical towards Russia
Your comment moderation history is full of racist “Found the russian!” comments.
Really just means “supports existing socialism,” but as a pejorative.
Authoritarianism broadly speaking is just a strong central government, so I suppose it’s not always a dictatorship per say I’d that’s what your point is. However, even still, there would be a class of people with absolute power over the populous just like the rich towering over the poor under capitalism. So it’d essentially be the government putting the boot over your neck instead of the billionaires
Having a strong central government under the control of the working classes is possible, though, as exists in socialist countries. It indeed uses this absolute power against enemies of the state, but in this case the enemies are capitalists, fascists, sabateurs, etc, and the state truly democratic in the sense that it represents the majority. The state can only be under the control of a definite class, it does not exist outside of class struggle but within it.
You’re very clearly a “baby leftist” from your few comments here so I really don’t want you to take this the wrong way. You really need to read some theory. Your heart is seemingly in the right place but that doesn’t mean much when you have yet to deconstruct your liberal foundations and actually come to understand the how and why of scientific socialism.
Ah, so this is what you mean by that. Still, bad focus. Ever since Hoxha’s Albania, Socialists have been pursuing the separation of the government and the economy as separate governing entities. So any claim that Socialists advocate for a strong central government is outdated at best. In reality it was always an askew argument as the people have far more democratic control over their lives than under capitalism.
Hey its fine if you want to believe you’re right, we all think we are. Thats why we believe what we believe. But can you at least not call people libs for not wanting authoritarianism?
Behold the greatest advance in Liberal Theory since Harry Potter.
You say, while defending the DNC elsewhere
You mean wanting to run brutal authoritarian dictatorships in other countries to exploit their resources
ah yes socialism is when dictator and no iPhone
Authoritarianism is not a thing, and you can tell it’s not a thing by how nobody who uses it can define it in a way that doesn’t include every government on earth.
Authoritarianism is a system of institutionalized domination, and yes this includes pretty much every government on earth currently.
Pretty much, or every? Can you think of a government that doesn’t fit this description? Because we already have a word for a system of institutionalized domination, and that word is “government.”
The Zapatista territories in Chiapas come to mind.
They enforce/enforced their authority often violently against the Mexican government, cartels, and the US.
Authoritarian is a useless buzzword for liberals to paint countries/movements they don’t like as immoral.
They enforce the authority of the people against institutional power, using a method (consensus-making) that ensures that it’s truly reflective of the will of the people (and not what a group of faux intellectuals think is the will of the people) and that it cannot be divorced from that will.
So? They institutionally dominated the region kicking out the cartels, US and Mexican government. They are authoritarian just as every form of governance is. Who the “authoritarianism” affects is a separate question.
This is both the use of authority, and not dissimilar to what socialist countries often deemed “authoritarian” practice.
What makes them different?
See my other reply
Is it not better for the working classes to institutionally dominate capitalists?
The comment I’m responding to is saying authoritarianism isn’t a thing. Whether or not the dictatorship of the proletariat the “right kind” of authoritarianism isn’t relevant to that conversation.
Their point is essentially that it just means “has a government,” but is treated like it’s a strict condemnation of some governments over others.
‘He shouts in the echo chamber’
lol
he mocks confidently because the western ruling class shares rhe same opinions he has
Removed by mod
Ah, my first customer, a .world lib classic LMBO
why is it always .world ? what’s happening there ?
.world is basically reddit. So they came here expecting clone of reddit but more convenient to use on their phones, but encountered numerous communists and the exposure to non-imperialist ideas made them incredibly uncomfortable. So they proceeded to do something they always do on reddit: snitching to the admins to deplatform communists. But it didn’t work because this is decentralised fediverse, not reddit. This made them extremely mad, so they defederated from two most prolific communist instances and random encounters on .ml make them pretty aggressive.
In short, .world is basically reddit.
I genuinely don’t mean to be a dick but it’s “exposure” not “exposition”
Indeed, thank you, no offense taken.
wait, that’s actually a really clever insult that i’ve never heard before!
it has no place here though. try twitter, maybe?
