And this, folks, is why I prefer to live in a democracy.
Perhaps some dictators are competent. But if they go crazy, you are truly fucked.
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2025
725 points (95.8% liked)
You Should Know
42063 readers
55 users here now
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!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
load more comments
(13 replies)
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.
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.
load more comments
(30 replies)
I would personally prefer a Mutualist system.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
communism is an economic system whereas democracy is a social one
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:
Totalitarianism is a label used by various political scientists to characterize the most tyrannical strain of authoritarian systems; in which the ruling elite, often subservient to a dictator, exert near-total control of the social, political, economic, cultural and religious aspects of society in the territories under its governance.
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
- Political repression: according to their ideology, rights aren't inherent or fundamental, the state is the source of human rights. Rights (eg, freedom of speech, assembly, & movement) are suppressed. Dissent is punished. Unauthorized political activities aren't tolerated.
- State terrorism: secret police, purges, mass executions & surveillance, persecution of dissidents, labor camps.
- Control of information: full control over mass communication media & the education system to promote the ideology.
- Economic control.
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.
Liberalism, however, is fundamentally incompatible with authoritarianism.
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:
Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy: democracy following ideas of liberal political philosophy.
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.
As we can plainly observe, liberalism/libertarianism & authoritarianism are on opposite sides of the ideological map.
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.
If anything, all you’re observing is a government depart from a philosophy to become a different type of government
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.
your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part in recent history until Trump.
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.
Authoritarianism is a political system characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberties, and the rule of law.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, right to private property, and equality before the law.
Ah, so you reject conventional political science, too?
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.
Even so, your claim is off: the US has been protecting inherent human rights & liberties for the most part in recent history until Trump.
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:
Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a libertarian socialist approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and an authoritarian socialist, vanguardist, or party-driven approach to establish a socialist state, which is expected to wither away.
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.
So, communism, just as capitalism and socialism, can be combined with all sorts of governance types.
While this is true, they're talking about Stalin & the political system mentioned before
Colloquially, communism refers to a communist state (also known as a Marxist–Leninist state)
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.
Now, an argument can actually be made that capitalism is inherently undemocratic.
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.
liberalism
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.
true democracy
Because liberalism is not democracy, liberal democracy is, and as mentioned:
Colloquially, democracy refers to liberal democracy, also called Western-style democracy, or substantive democracy
True democracy was already defined
Democracy is a political system/government in which political power is vested in the people or the population of a state.
and demands less.
This is why socialism exists as a transitory state
Only to communists: socialists regard it as the goal.
economic system that grants a lot of benefits of communism (worker’s rights, a social state, socially owned industry)
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.
For instance, over five million people lacked adequate nutrition and starved to death during the Soviet famine of 1932–1933, one of several Soviet famines. The 1932–33 famine was caused primarily by Soviet-mandated collectivization, although the famine in part was also caused by natural conditions. In response to frequent shortages, massive second economy existed for all categories of goods and services.
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
Total emissions in the USSR in 1988 were about 79% of the US total. Considering that the Soviet GNP was only some 54% of that of the USA, this means that the Soviet Union generated 1.5 times more pollution than the USA per unit of GNP.
Their planners considered pollution control
unnecessary hindrance to economic development and industrialization
and
By the 1990s, 40% of Russia's territory began demonstrating symptoms of significant ecological stress, largely due to a diverse number of environmental issues, including deforestation, energy irresponsibility, pollution, and nuclear waste.
Stemming from those so-called benefits, the Soviet constitution of 1977 made a number of promises it couldn't realize.
- labor, free from exploitation, as the source of growth
- continuous improvement of their living standards (art. 39)
- steady growth of the productive forces (art. 40).
The Soviet experience of socialist ownership and the concomitant centrally planned character of the economy showed the difficulties of realizing economic growth in order to ensure an increasing standard of living. Growth in the Soviet Union had been high in the nineteen thirties and early fifties, but had been deteriorating ever since.
The actual functioning of the centrally planned economy was very different from the way it was planned to function. This had very much to do with the fact that economic actors in the Soviet Union also responded to state actions in a way that frustrated the state's stated intentions. People engaged in informal and illegal activities and reduced their working time, frustrating the growth targets.
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.
The end of the Cold War has changed the focus of the debate on human rights. The West, with its focus on civil and political rights, no longer opposed the Soviet states, with their emphasis on economic, social and cultural rights. The demise of the communist systems gave rise to a certain extent of triumphalism in the West, which had proven to be not only superior in political and civil rights, but also in economic and social rights. The economies of the western countries produced much more income and the material welfare of their populations was much higher than that of those living in Eastern Europe. [^liberal-demands]: by rule of law & protection of essential rights/liberties
load more comments
(8 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
is the democracy in the room with you now?
dot ml 'bout to crest the horizon like the riders of rohan.
I can't decide if it's their job or their religion.
It's predominantly children who just learned about leftist politics and have decided it's their entire identity.
If someone is a tankie as an adult I just assume arrested development/cluster B personality disorder.
I wonder why the .ml stans seem so interested in defending current Russian interests, it's very perplexing, it's like they're watching Russian media or something
load more comments
(2 replies)
There's a pretty good Behind the Bastards episode on Stahlin. Basically he was an ultra-paranoid drunk that forced his cabinet members to get drunk with him on a regular basis, which pretty much ruined any potential for effective government in the USSR.
Russia has a strong-man fetish which even the Bolsheviks couldn't overcome. For all the post-revolution ideology and communist rhetoric, they still just want a Tsar.
view more: next ›