• PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hoo boy.

    The point being raised, I believe, is that ‘communist’ countries are generally as ‘communist’ as they are ‘the people’s’ or ‘democratic’ - it bears little resemblance to the 19th century theories which spawned the term and which are still in use amongst socialist thinkers today.

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean, countries controlled by communist parties themselves would say that. Communist parties generally claim to run a socialist worker’s state which will lead to communism.

        In reality, it’s just a power grab, with little to do with the workers.

        There have been socialist polities in the past 100 years, genuinely socialist. None without their faults, but certainly not the totalitarian farce that people think of when they think of communism.

              • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m asking what your point is, or are you incapable of reading more than 6 words in a reply?

                • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  My point is:

                  "Shit like this is why I don’t get (some of) the LGBTQ community’s fascination with communism and tankies.

                  They have proven themselves just as anti-LGBTQ as the fascists."

                  • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Okay, and what does that have to do with fact China and the USSR aren’t/weren’t communist being convenient?

      • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        I recon the Neozapatista communes in Chiapas come pretty close. Historically, Revolutionary Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the Makhnovshina during the Russian Civil War, and a couple others also came very close to the definition of communism, although all of them, because they still had to interact with the outside economy, continued to use some form of money.

        In the case of the aforementioned historic governments, they met their demise because they relied too heavily on an alliance with tankies, who then proceeded to shoot them in the back. The Neozapatistas did not ally with any authoritarian groups, which is why the sprung up in 1994 in the form of MAREZ and still exist today in the form of GALs.

    • Aux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, these countries have implemented 19th century theories extremely accurately. After all, Marx manifesto is openly calling for violence and genocide and Marx was also a big fan of Taiping Rebellion which resulted in more than 20 million deaths. I bet he was dreaming about the same destiny for Europe.