78
Here in Brazil there are people who say that some idea or project is communist, usually when it is a...
4 weeks, 1 day ago
—
4 weeks, 2 days ago13 of 13
Tip Reveddit Real-Time can notify you when your content is removed.
your account history
Tip Check if your account has any removed comments.
view my removed comments you are viewing a single comment's thread.
view all comments
Communism in America is the antithesis of American values. I do not subscribe to classical Marxism, but if we borrow a Marxian lens, we can say that rich countries are in an advanced, post-industrial capitalist phase and have exported much of their potential unrest to poorer countries.
The old Marxist idea of "base and superstructure" now stretches beyond national borders. The economic base is found in vulnerable countries whose rulers are enriched and armed by Western governments. These governments are given the military and security tools they need to keep their populations under control so people keep showing up to produce the goods and raw materials that sustain life in richer countries. Intelligence services often "soften up the ground" when Western companies want to build a factory, open a mine, clear forests for timber, drill for oil, and so on. Covert economic operations are carried out to gain influence in key regions. Many of the people involved sincerely believe in their missions. Still, an objective observer might look at all this and conclude that government and business are working together to expand American interests in resource-rich areas where the population is desperately poor and the government deeply corrupt. The result is a network of factories running 24/7 in places like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Pakistan, India, Mexico, and Turkey, feeding the economies of wealthier nations.
Within this system, America still has some genuine strengths. We at least have an independent judiciary, which is probably the branch of government least influenced by money, even if it is hanging on by its teeth. I would also argue that we do have freedom of speech, even if many people nowadays would disagree with that claim.
Meanwhile, Communist parties around the world spend much of their energy denouncing one another as "revisionist." The revolution is postponed, folks... indefinitely.
A revolution wouldn't do anything anyways, except probably bring in some authoritarian rule. Constitutional democratic federal republics with regulated free markets may be the best arrangement we have found so far for balancing interests and improving life for the greatest number of people. Within such a system we can utilize independent judiciaries and keep pushing for transparency, accountability, and guaranteed free speech. Over time, those tools give us our best hope that truth will win out and that those who violate human dignity will be held to account.
So you're politically illiterate
Project 2025, dismantling independent federal agencies in favour of loyalists, consolidating law-enforcement powers under direct presidential control, open calls to exceed constitutional term limits, attacking political "enemies" and dismantling reproductive rights, these all look like textbook features of authoritarian systems to me.
Right-wing, authoriterian regimes share more structural similarities to communism than traditional left-wing democratic parties.
Communists seek to dismantle the state aparatus entirely or to use the words of Engles himself "let it wither away" the only similarty that trump has to socialists is that he is a populist all similarites end there, he works in the interest of oligarchs who rent the state apartus to siphon money from the working poor, he is an anthithesis of a communist
That might be what many 19th century communists thought history was moving toward, a teleological end point of the historical-materialist, dialectical process. But every time self-described communists have actually taken power, instead of letting the state wither away, they built an enormous state-first, state-only society and economy. In these huge bureaucracies officials controlled every aspect of life. They hoarded food and other goods and used them to bribe officials and keep people in line. When central planners’ predictions went wrong, people simply went without basic items needed for everyday living. Markets did not exist to respond to demand.
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need” sounds nice, but who decides what I need. If I want a car, some central planner in an office decides whether I get one. I cannot earn more, make a profit, or take a higher-paying job to buy things I want, things that might open new opportunities. I just work where I am told, because the government forces compliance on everyone.
Groups like Shining Path and FARC are communist movements. Their track records show how well that model has worked out in practice.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is apliable only in a communist society witch has already achived post scarecity conditions, a socialist transitional state practices "from each according to his ability, to each according to his condtribution" and no no one is going to tell you what your needs are, what ever you need will be given as long as it does not infringe on the well being of others, you can get a car as long as that car doesnt contribute to global warming, and yes you cant earn more because you already can get whatever you want. You seem to argue in good faith but lack the knowledge of what communists actualy advocate for, i reccomend some communist literature and then decide if their agenda is unobtainable or not
That's not communism. Communism is not synonymous with authoritarianism
You are politically illiterate
No. It's simply stating a fact. At no point have you argued political theory.
"Tend to do" How about you tell me what they believe? I don't give a damn what they do because lots of disparate political ideologies have done similar things to each other. So instead of saying "Hitler drank water" What did they actually believe?
Also democracy is not synonymous with freedom
I'll say it a third time; you are politically illiterate. "This is what good and bad is. Isn't it?" No. No it isn't. You know sweet-fuckall about politics
Theoretical classical Marxism was meant to be utopian. In practice, whenever communism has taken hold on a large scale, it has been closely tied to authoritarian rule. It is dishonest to claim it is not, or to insist those self-described communist countries were not truly communist, when in reality the outcome has consistently been authoritarianism. One party rule and everyone falling in line behind the decisions made at the highest levels is a hallmark of communism.
Communism is authoritarian rule
I agree, that's what I meant