this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
1503 points (97.8% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

35667 readers
3341 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] rarsamx@lemmy.ca 66 points 1 week ago (7 children)

The reason of the confusion is clear.

The US propaganda has always equated Communism and totalitarianism.

It is bonkers that people in the USA cannot distinguish between an economic system and a political system.

Those two are distinct things. True communism is very democratic. But reading the Communist manifesto is heretic in the US and you are left with what your leaders tell you.

The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.

Right wing totalitarian dictators also use starvation of their own people as means of control.

What you are experiencing in the US is totalitarianism and while it hasn't gotten to USSR levels, it is going on that direction.

Food for thought: study the political system in China, you'd be surprised how it's actually more democratic than the current USA. Yes, the CCP controls the nominations. Now, tell me if there is true plurality in the US, two right wing parties selecting their candidates without any real popular input.

Really you've been bamboozled to think there is real democracy in the US.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.

Yes. But what does that mean? If I have a recipe for potion of immortality, but anyone that drinks the resulting potion dies instead, it's a bad recipe. It doesn't matter its promise of immortality sounds good.

Communism makes good promises. However, every time you have a communist revolution, it ends up being authoritarian instead. What does that say about the communist political system?

[–] save_the_humans@leminal.space 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (25 children)

More like every time there's been democratically elected socialists or communists, western powers intervene with staged coups, assassinations, or embargos.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ill be the patsy: You can't make rules to eliminate human greed / lust for power?

I'm very simplistic with this stuff and haven't studied it, but that seems to be the fundamental limitation with communism. Would work great with robots but we're more 'complex' with our subconscious bias, unexamined motives and insecurities driving our actions.

[–] I_Jedi@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago

I read a Chinese visual novel where society actual DID manage to eradicate humanity's greed/lust for power.

The biggest issue with the depicted society is that people live out their lives in ways deemed safe by the state. No one who lives in the society sees any problem with this, since their needs are cared for, and they're allowed to freely pursue interests the state considers safe. The society determined that any culture that existed before their rise to power has to be destroyed or locked up - introduction of such items can have a majorly destabilizing effect, and bring greed/lust for power back.

[–] BaldManGoomba@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Every time a capitalist system is implemented the oligarchy grows and seizes power and some corrupt oligarchs usurp the power of the people. What does that say about capitalism? I think your generalized question is terribly bad faithed when every can point out the US system and straight capitalism is a failure also. Rather then generalized ideas and theory we look at all the systems and see what does work and how we can keep the power in the hands of people

I think the issue is corruption, power, and control. To have a capitalist society you must allow businesses do what they want or they will seize power. In a communist society power is centralized when it is focused on the state as a communistic in which power and control when questioned or control loosened gets cracked down.

Democratic Republicans are great but there is a few problems when they move so slow. One, what if the charter is never fixed when we add more rights. We just tack it on as precedent and never amend the charter.

Second,if the population is growing is it still representing people properly. I think having a representative for every 1 million people is to huge. And the fact we have disparities as large as 1 to million but then some have as low as 1 in 250k. Is unequal.

Third. I don't think as long as businesses hold power over an individuals life businesses should have political power. They hold to much currently. Also the fact through a business they can unlimitedly donate money but i as an individual can only spend $2,500(somewhere around there is the campaign cap)on a candidate is insane power wise.

Fourth a mixed economic/ business system would be wonderful a more planned economy by what citizens need would be nice. Also economy and business shouldn't be running the country. The individual people should.

Fifth States are stupid unless they can leave. The lines/borders are arbitrarily stupid and the fact the power federal is based on the lines fucks us up. If so chooses states should be able to break apart and make local states of the people so it is easier to have democratic control over your local area. Yes this means almost every state would become major cities and then the rural areas. Unless they want to partner with a city.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

"everyone is an American"

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

I think it says more about how Lemmings and other westerners understand authoritarianism. Because capitalist countries are way more authoritarian than any communist country has ever been. Y’all have just been fed lie after lie until you start repeating them yourselves.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

True communism is very democratic.

At some point, you have to get passed "true whatever" and accept certain institutions already exist.

Also helps to recognize that communism as a movement has been anti-colonialist first and democratic only as it serves the former cause. Communists aren't receptive to a liberal democracy that allows half the people to sell out the other half.

Folks love to get lost in the sauce talking about what Marxism really truly means, as an ideology, without asking why people adopt it or how they apply it in practice.

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

that allows half the people to sell out the other half.

Do you actually think that's worse than the elite deciding who is going to starve and who's going to be disappeared to maintain their power?

Why bother pretending to return the means of production to the worker only to rob them of their voice?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

You're discussing with a tankie. For them the gulags and the holodomor will only get the response "what about xyz in the west".

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Do you actually think that’s worse than the elite deciding who is going to starve and who’s going to be disappeared to maintain their power?

I think that's how it is accomplished. Divide and conquer.

Why bother pretending to return the means of production to the worker only to rob them of their voice?

Why do you believe elections are a voice of the people when they do routinely reproduce the plutocracy people say they despise?

[–] bobzer@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think you've been living in a broken democracy too long, you can't examine it objectively anymore.

The alternative is that you actually believe authoritarianism to be morally superior, which is just disturbing.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

The alternative is that you actually believe authoritarianism to be morally superior

Which enemy state of the US isn't classified as "authoritarian" in the modern era? The very etimology of the term gets chased back to the Anarcho-Capitalist heyday of the Coolidge Era. It's a token phrase that's intended to denounce any government institution. Since Reagan, we've adopted it to mean "any government we don't like".

I don't believe the system of government establishes any inherent morality. A democratic slave state is not morally superior to a liberated theocracy. A multi-party parliamentary system that starves and imprisons its homeless population to the applause of a supermajority is not ethically superior to a revolutionary junta that strives to feed every mouth and shelter every head.

I think the long term impulses of a single-party state or a consolidated leadership tend towards corruption. And egalitarian governance can alleviate tension between state bureaucrats and lay civilians by offering them a hand in oversight and intervention. But the sin is in the corrupt practices, not the composition of the state. Corrupt mass media, disinformation, and corporate capture of social institutions undermine the foundations of

Go crack a copy of "The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas". Its a fairly short story, but it illustrates my point. Democracy is not a panacea nor should it be expected to function as such.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Call me naive if you want but I think we might want to aim for slightly more than another flavor of illusory democracy.

Although I have to say that the primary selection process in the US, while deeply flawed, is far more open for insurgent candidates than the Chinese system. See Mamdani for a recent example of how democratic elites don’t have total control of the outcomes.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

True communism is very democratic

Literately Marx himself called for a “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Which would then somehow magically give way to a true democratic government, as if any dictator on earth had ever just resigned out of their own accord.

[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] atmorous@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The people specifically the working class

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 week ago

I mean in the current dictatorships, where it's a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie by Marxist terms, it is usually one dictator and the setup is fairly hierarchical.

Why is it called a dictatorship then?

[–] lunaluster@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you are familiar with the Paris Commune of 1871, you'd know what was meant by that term, according to Engels.

It is not a call to install 'a' dictator to usher in a new socialist world. It is the act of overthrowing the 'dictatorship of capital.' The character of the people should be radically democratic, and aim to put all social institutions in the collective hands of everyone who is affected by them. The only magic going on here is the mystification of what has been plainly laid out over the past two centuries, and attempted by numerous cultures across the globe, with varying degrees of success, in no small part due to people who knew what it means to take power away from self-interested tyrants.

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago

“Varying degrees of success” is a great euphemism for “more people killed than several holocausts”

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Dictatorship of the proletariat literally just means that the state represents the proletariats interests, rather than the bourgeois' interests (like democracy in the west).

[–] MacNCheezus@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Democracy was supposed to do that. What would prevent a communist state from being usurped by capitalist interests (since capitalists are the ones who pay their bills)?

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 week ago

That is a good question. Keep in mind I'm not marxist, but I have read some of the theory.

In a communist state, the means of production are usually nationalised by the state, for capitalists, all of their wealth comes from exploiting the labor of others, if the means are controlled by the people through a democratic government, the capitalists can't profit since they don't control the means.

As such, the idea that capitalists pay the bills of communist states seems wrong to me.

[–] crypt0cler1c@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago

The USA is a massive country of 330m+. Literally tens of millions of us have no delusions about this.

[–] Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist

Hard disagree. Universal healthcare, free education to the highest level, lowest wealth and income inequality in the history of the region, guaranteed housing and abolition of homelessness and unemployment, life expectancy skyrocketing from a meager 28 years to 70 in the span of 40 years, abolition of private business, redistribution of land to peasants, and saving Europe from Fascism really seem like communist traits to me. There were defects and policy failures during some of the hardest times in history, don't get me wrong, but simply by achieving all of those wonderful goals without ever having colonies or engaging in imperialism, that's very communist to me.

What you are experiencing in the US is totalitarianism and while it hasn't gotten to USSR levels, it is going on that direction

The US has had, for decades, the highest prison population in the world, both in absolute and relative terms. In absolute terms, the US has nearly as many prisoners as the USSR did during WW2, the historic highest for obvious reasons (25 million Soviet citizens were killed by Nazism). You have literal fascist police disappearing people based on the colour of the skin, and the US has literally bombed black people for their ideology in US soil.

You're damn high in American exceptionalism and anticommunist propaganda.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 week ago (6 children)

without ever having colonies or engaging in imperialism

That's only because the USSR lobbied hard in the UN so that colonialism is defined as having overseas colonies. The "near abroad" is/was a colonial empire.

The USSR was definitely imperialistic, see Hungary 1956, where it crushed a revolution which was not against communism, the revolutionaries were in fact communists, they just wanted to be free of Soviet occupation.

Not debating the accomplishments of the USSR though, it was definitely and improvement on the Russian Empire.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)