You Should Know
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated. We are not here to ban people who said something you don't like.
If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
view the rest of the comments
i’d like to point out that communism is an economic system whereas democracy is a social one, they are not incompatible concepts….
just because Stalin wasn’t a very communist regime but was brutally authoritarian and is widely criticized as “what communism is like”.
Communism under a dictatorship is a paradox. The people own and control nothing. The leader and their chosen circle own and control everything. That is neither communism nor socialism and it is not possible for either to exist in any authoritarian context.
Well, the problem is that to get to the utopia called Communism were everybody is equal, a Society has to first go through the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat after the Workers Seize The Means Of Production and, curiously (or maybe not so curiously if one understands at least a bit of Human Nature, especially that of the kind of people who seek power) none of the nations which went into the Dictatorship Of The Proletariat (i.e. all the ones which call or called themselves "Communist") ever actually reached Communism and they all got stuck in Dictatorial regimes (and I believe in not a single one of those is the Proletariat actually in charge: for example in China Labour Unions are illegal),
So whilst it is indeed not possible for Communism to exist in an authoritarian context, according to Marxism-Leninism to get to Communism one must first go through an authoritarian context and eventually from there reach Communism, hence why all those nations that tried to reach Communism never got past the authoritarian stage that precedes Communist.
Ahh... please tell me more about this human nature which is incompatible with communism while microplastics flows in your veins.
I think they were specifically referring to Marxism-Leninism. It is "human nature" to act in your own self interest, so any system with hierarchies of decision-making power will eventually become corrupt. We just have to take a non-hierarchical path towards communism.
human nature does not exist. explained it here:
https://blorp.blahaj.zone/inbox/c/youshouldknow@lemmy.world/posts/https%3A%2F%2Flemmy.world%2Fpost%2F38937776/comments/17913885
Re-read my post.
I was not making any human nature claims about Communism, I was making them about what happens when a dictatorial system is created, no matter how good the original intentions stated as the reason to create it.
The viability or not of actual Communism (as in, a classless system were everybody is equal) is a whole different subject. My point is entirely around the good old "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" effect and how that tends to turns supposedly transitional dictatorial stages into something permanent.
oh btw i am an anarchist. Anarchy also is not well with "human nature". So dont think I am a Marxist-leninist and defending them. I just...
...hate that word.
Your opinion does not matter, I am not saying this because you are invalid. I am saying this because this is not the thing i wanna talk with you.
"human nature" these two words mean nothing and even more than being meaningless these two words are harmful. What human nature? Are there any scientific proofs that something is "human nature". It has no logic behind yet it is accepted by you and excepted to accept by the reader.
There is no such thing as human nature. Human nature is when you have two hands. Human nature is not when "if someone gains power the power corrupts the powerholder." there is a chance that it may not occour. It is not certain. the situation of that "human nature" is not very specified. thats why it has no meaning behind it.
The second i wanna point is that the "human nature" is always used against communism. Communism is not well with human nature. okay, sure. What about capitalism. you are either capitalist or communist. You want either private property exist or not. capitalism harms people so it is not very well with human nature either. Power also corrupts in capitalism. Elon Musk is the dictionary defination of power corrupts.
If power corrupts then under capitalism it also is power corrupts if human nature is not well with communism same goes with capitalism.
It is not just you that say this human nature. It is nothing personal. I really do hate that fallacy.
Two points:
Call it whatever you want: you can't logically deny that some behavioral traits present in some humans cause them to seek or even create positions were they have power over others, structures which they then defend, preserve and extend whilst they extract personal upsides from their positions in it, and that group systems were there is already a single power pole with little or no effective independent oversight are way easier to take over by such people than systems with multiple power poles which keep each other in check.
(In summary people who lust after power will do whatever it takes to keep it going once they get it)
And yeah, this applies just as much to the dictatorships calling themselves "Communist" as it does to "Capitalist" systems - we've been seeing in the last 3 or 4 decades in Neoliberal so called "Democracies" Money subverting the supposedly independent Pillars of Democracy (though in some countries, not really: for example in many countries those at the top of the Political Pillar choose who heads the Judicial Pillar hence the latter is not independent of the former) to make itself THE power above all others, all this driven by individuals with those very behavioral traits I mentioned above, just starting from further behind (having to first undermine multi-polar power systems) than similar people trying to take over autocratic systems were power is already concentrated in a single pole that answers to nobody else.
(The path to unchallenged supreme power is a lot shorter in autocratic regimes)
Are you denying that amongst humans there are people with the behavioral trait of seeking power at any cost? Are you denying once such people get said power they will do whatever it takes to keep it going, including preserving the societal and political structures that maintain said situation even whilst telling everybody else "this is only temporary"? Are you denying that it's easier to capture power in that way in systems where its already concentrated in a single place which is not kept in check by independent entities which can overthrow it?
And I'm not even going it other human behavioral traits involved in things like groupthink and "yes men" and how such elements in human groups can pervert ever the most honest holders of power.
Battling against the expression "human nature" doesn't change the fact that these traits exists in many humans and the dynamics of their interaction with human social structures as shown again and again in millennia of History.
Nice answer and i do really appreciate your answer thanks for your hard work to write it it.
Evolution has scientific articles behind it. Do you have scientific articles behind your "human nature" claims. Its science's job to analyse "nature". If such phenomena existed there would be articles about it. Please send it.
Yeah, Science does have scientific articles behind what I referred to in a simplified way as "human nature" - the entire domains of Psychology and Sociology deal with that and beyond that, even Behavioral Economics concerns itself with how Humans act though in a more restricted set of conditions.
Then there is History, which concerns itself with how Humans have acted in the past.
In fact "How humans act" seems to be a rather important subject for Humans which gets reflected in how quite a lot of Science being done about it.
Those being such massive domains, you can find those articles you are clearly so interested in yourself, in places like arXiv.
I suggest you start by looking into Sociopathy, Psychopathy, Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Megalomania from the domain of Psychology - people with such personality disorders are the kind that tend to seek power and have not much in the way of limits about getting it and keeping it.
Have fun!
Interesting take. But there is some truth to the notion of 'human nature'. Humans do act certain ways; we retract from pain, we attempt to solve problems and communicate. Whether it is 'human nature' that dictatorship power corrupts people can only be inferred by the examples we have seen. If you can show that a dictatorship didn't lead to abuse of power in some significant number of cases, then it would be proven false. But there's the problem - and it's more of a logical one - no system can make everyone happy and so from at least some perspectives, any political system will be seen as corrupt by some. So we can never have a dictatorship that isn't considered corrupt. Just like we can't have a democracy / capitalist society that isn't considered corrupt by some. All we can do is look at observed general patterns and try to extrapolate. And there aren't enough examples to do a really convincing statistical analysis. So far it seems that humans in power always abuse that power, so it's reasonable to conclude that that is a natural human tendency, like continuing to breath when able.
Yes but these are psychological behaviours of humans. Psychology as it is name suggest psycho-logia is a scientific branch. One must speak about that "human nature" if they have scientific data. And instantly that would not be human nature at all because scientific researches have titles like "the change of bird population in cyprus in tha last 50 years" and not "bird nature"\
It is a generalization not a fact. You cant build up your argument on a generalization and say that it is "human nature". As if humans have evolved by a scientifically approved fact that to do that. While i agree on power corrupts i have awareness of that "if we give one person all the power the probability of it will ruin them is very high. Very bold of someone to label something as "natural".
I am okay with going "statics show that humans are tend to do xyz" I am not okay just saying "human nature"
I like the "moneyless" part of the definition, aka if you have a currency you're not communist. Which, to be fair, they didn't call themselves as a country.
Communism is very much a social system. Implying economics don't have a huge impact on society would be the opposite of Marxism.
I would personally prefer a Mutualist system.
But he wasn't criticizing communism, or advocating for capitalism. He was criticizing a dictator and saying he prefers democracy.
Unless you think communism can't exist outside of a brutal dictatorship.
I think communism can't exist in a brutal dictatorship
Yep.
Communism and socialism in itself isn't that problematic an economic system. Unless of course you belong to the few select brands of freeloaders who've successfully managed to sell to the general population that without you, everything would collapse (looking at you, landlords and billionaires and stock market speculators).
The problem is that the economic part can't work without an evenly matched societal system - and for people to bypass their immediate greed reaction of the usual "why should the result of my work go to others who didn't do that work" BS, as seeing far ahead to realise that pooling resources in such manner will benefit everyone, and when the community thrives, so does the individual. For that, one needs proper education, which is usually the antithesis of a capitalist system (a capitalist system will inherently only allow one to learn a limited set of facts, and will systematically ridicule those who dare step outside those limits).
And herein lies the second problem. Socialism and communism could be great for the average people, but the average people have been misled and lied to and been brainwashed for so long, they need to be forcibly broken out of that bubble. And the only way to force that is through a revolution, and authoritarian enforcement of the socioeconomic system.
Now the problem with that is... it's incredibly easy for a malicious actor to then infiltrate the authoritarian system, and push its leaders to do counterproductive things. Add on top of that the constant CIA meddling, and you get your run of the mill authoritarian "communist" (in name only) paranoid leader who rules with an iron fist. The intention might've been good, but the execution was starkly against the very people the revolution was supposed to help. Repeat it a few times and now the whole world is afraid of the economic system, not authoritarianism.
Then continue by throwing in some brainwashed tankies who literally suck up to the authoritarian regimes, spreading BS about how those are "true communism", just so average people don't even consider learning about it because the term becomes synonymous with authoritarians and their bootlickers.
well that’s absurd, and exactly why the tankies are shilling so hard
Communism is a political and economic ideology whose goal is the creation of a communist society, the pseudoscientifically postulated utopia of a stateless, classless, moneyless, post-scarcity society. Communist ideology is like the Christianity of politics & economics that keeps promising the 2nd coming of Christ: they insist it'll happen someday inevitably. No possible way Marx was wrong.
Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state): a political system/government consisting of a socialist state following Marxist–Leninist political philosophy with a dictatorial ruling class that promises to achieve a communist society.
Democracy is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state. Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.
So, colloquially, communism refers to a political & economic system whereas democracy refers to a political system.
As a political system, the communist state is totalitarian, the most extreme authoritarianism:
Whereas an authoritarian regime is primarily concerned with political power rather than changing the world & human nature (they will grant society a certain degree of liberty as long as that power is uncontested), totalitarianism aims for more. A totalitarian government is more concerned with changing the world & human nature to fulfill an ideology: it seeks to completely control the thoughts & actions of its citizens through such tactics as
All of this is entirely compatible with Marxism-Leninism.
Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism. It holds that governments exist for the people & authority is legitimate only when it protects inalienable/fundamental/inherent rights & liberties of individuals. The people have an inherent right to obtain a government with legitimate authority, and when their government lacks or loses legitimacy, the people have a right & duty replace or change that government until it obtains legitimacy.
an argument easily disproven by pointing to the US for the last few decades.
Nope, a government can't disprove a moral & political philosophy. As we can plainly observe, liberalism/libertarianism & authoritarianism are on opposite sides of the ideological map.
Liberalism is a philosophy whereas liberal democracy is a type of government as was clearly stated:
If anything, all you're observing is a government depart from a philosophy to become a different type of government. Even so, your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part in recent history until Trump.
Even so, there are other liberal democracies across the globe.
The political compass is incredibly basic and does a horrible job at describing ideologies. Ideology is not just a basic "left wing/right wing, libertarian/authoritarian" %'s, it's more accurately representable with parameters. It's as useful as a toy.
Besides liberalism's glaring issues, the whole point is that this is the inevitable endpoint of capitalism and by extension, liberalism. If an ideology always ends up in a horrible result as we see in the US and other liberal nations, it's fair to include that in the criticism of Liberalism.
Jesus fucking christ what? The Indian genocides/reservations? Chattel slavery, and modern slavery through penal labor? The war on terror? The countless coups done by the US that installed fascist dictators? Japanese internment camps? The monroe doctrine? Operation paperclip? Palestine? Literally all of this happened before Trump came into power. What the fuck are you talking about. How is that defending "human rights & liberties" in any way?
hey, when obama drone bombed all those arab kids he was really checks notes protecting human rights. same with Biden aggressively clamping down on pro-Palestinian peaceful protests by students. I feel like my human rights are defended so hard.
They hate you for your freedoms !! Totally not because of all those bombs
when you think about it, Biden killing people in Gaza was just his best effort to solve world hunger through humane depopulation.
/sarcasm, since I'm not sure some liberals wouldn't take me seriously and think it was a good idea.
imagine being so illogical that you think that something as complex as all human ideologies can be represented on a 2D plain.
reality is much more complicated that you can fathom, silly brah
Ah, so you reject conventional political science, too? Cool.
It's just straightforward definitions & logic: the diagram is there for the slow.
the political compass is not "political science", you debate nerd. and even if it was, I'd say it's pretty good odds you're not a political science major, and you're just badly regurgitating liberal nonsense you read on the substack for some aide to Nacy Pelosi. what you've posted so far is contemptible in how easily it's debunked even by looking at what the partisan corporate US media shows you, let alone any third party observer to the absolute human rights atrocities the US has been involved in.
there's a lot wrong with your comment, but let me focus on this part here because there's only so much stupid I can put up with.
you're out of your fucking mind if you think the US has been even remotely protecting human rights. this is nothing more than the most obvious western propaganda bullshit, and even our allies in the rest of the western world would scoff at the idea.
Shhh, you'll interrupt the lib circlejerk of how they're the only good ones who commit atrocities, every other atrocity done by others is worse.
The "political" aspect of communism stems directly from the desire to radically alter the economic system. It is not tied, however, to the particular political order.
Coming from the same very Wikipedia article you cite on communism:
So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types. It can be authoritarian (and so can be capitalism - look at fascism to see an example), and it can be democratic (early Soviets) or even libertarian (anarcho-communism). You can build a totalitarian communist hellhole, and a totalitarian capitalist one; same in reverse.
Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic. As your ability to exercise rights is heavily tied to your wealth (think of regular worker suing a billionaire, or all the lobbying, or corruption scandals involving the wealthiest and the way they slip out of them like nothing ever happened), people can be and commonly are silenced. Moreover, if you have money, nothing stops you from financing the media to translate your message. This way, important political messages are drowned in favor of what the rich want to translate, and certain (rather corrupt) voices are heavily amplified over others.
By extension, liberalism, even in the most ideal of its forms, is deeply flawed when it comes to a true democracy.
Finally, most communists (including Marx, since you mention him) realize that the communist society is at least very far off from the current state of affairs. This is why socialism exists as a transitory state, an economic system that grants a lot of benefits of communism (worker's rights, a social state, socially owned industry) while keeping the monetary incentives in the economy. The absolute majority of communists support this transition and welcome a socialist state.
While this is true, they're talking about Stalin & the political system mentioned before
not any political system. None of the other types of communist governments have existed to scale for a meaningful duration & none have fulfilled their fantastical/mythical promise. They either fail within a few years or persist through authoritarian repression while purporting to strive for a fantasy they may never achieve.
Not a political system. Nothing you wrote about it necessarily happens (depends on government), and the rich have been successfully sued & convicted of crimes before.
Isn't some deluded speculation. It's a moral & political philosophy of immediately realizable demands to restrict government authority[^liberal-demands]. Are you arguing against the restriction of government authority & against liberty? That's a strong argument to reject your political system as illegitimate.
Unlike the fantasy of a communist society, the demands of liberalism have been achieved before in North America & Europe. It's why you're allowed to write everything you have.
Because liberalism is not democracy, liberal democracy is, and as mentioned:
True democracy was already defined
and demands less.
Only to communists: socialists regard it as the goal.
Economic systems aren't political systems, so they don't have rights, though they may depend on rights (from a political system).
Moreover, those benefits amount to less than purported in communist states.
With all their rhetoric on substantive equality, & the time, state ownership, & central planning to achieve it, we'd expect at least the main outcome of economic equality. Yet, measures of economic inequality don't support that: China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba rate medium on economic inequality. (Only, North Korea with an average height notably shorter than South Korea due to food shortages has low economic inequality.) To the contrary, the "flawed" liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia do better with low economic inequality.Despite an ideology opposing the exploitation of workers, Soviet forced labor camps did exactly that & would work the malnourished to death.
The formal guarantees for nutrition from those benefits meant little when at least 5 million died during the Soviet famine of 1932 the Soviets created.
In contrast, during the Great Depression in the United States, mortality fell & there were few reported cases from starvation.
Without profit motive in those "benefits", we might have expected a better environmental record in the Soviet Union. To the contrary
Their planners considered pollution control
and
Stemming from those so-called benefits, the Soviet constitution of 1977 made a number of promises it couldn't realize.
Shortages increasingly lead people to the second economy with its blat (favors) network. Eventually, the last Soviet leaders, conceding failure by their own standards (economic, social, & cultural rights) & western standards (civil & political rights), dismantled the system from within: Western governments had exceeded their communist state by all standards.