← Feed
@frisbird@lemmy.ml
2026-09-23 00:46 UTC
I can see your point if viewing communism as a purely abstract movement instead of actually set of policies
There’s a lot of ground in between these two extremes. Communism cannot be an actual set of policies yet, but it’s much more than an abstract movement
I resist rhetoric in the absence of policy because it is just lip service
As well you should, but the policies of the USSR, China, and every other communist experiment were very concrete and still not communism. They are concrete policy experiments to bring about the conditions of the liberation of the working classes
In other words, the proof is in the pudding (aka policy).
I would say the pudding is the outcomes, not the policies
In this regard communism has never failed
It’s just the sort of thing that doesn’t fail. It’s like saying science fails or doesn’t fail. It’s not a thing science does. Science is a doctrine, not a project with a concrete objective. Communism is a doctrine, not a project with a concrete objective
I would caution this same type of thinking though as it could be used to justify any movement
We’re not justifying movements because they’ve never failed. That would be silly. We justify movements because of our scientific analysis of human society, the correctness of their policies insofar as our analysis understands things, and then based on the outcomes. And based on the outcomes, we update our scientific analysis. That’s how we justify it
it isn’t the policy after all, but a collection of rhetoric waiting for the “right” implementation
There’s a huge difference between an analysis and “rhetoric”, and no one is waiting for the “right” implementation. Communists explicitly reject the possibility of such a thing. Every single revolutionary movement will have a unique implementation. There is no abstract “correct” implementation to be found. We bring about the conditions of our liberation on the basis of our analysis, our policies, and our behaviors being commensurate with reality and we fail to bring about the conditions on the basis of our failure to understand that reality and to propagate behaviors commensurate with it
It is not the spirit or even policies that make them fail, but the human element and our collective culture
It’s our behaviors, which are shaped by material conditions. That’s why communist policies are inclusive of the full spectrum of social possibilities, because we cannot compartmentalize our policies from our social and collective behaviors. They inform each other dialectically. What you’re articulating is the sort of liberal/idealist concept of governance - if we have good policies everything will be fine. That’s not how communists see the world. Our collective culture is inclusive of our policies and our policies must always account accurately for not only the current culture but how that culture will change
As far as what degree is needed or not needed for socialism, it is debatable. As you pointed out we have never experienced it in a real life example, unless you are counting the imperfect attempt at policies by olgiarchies pretending to be whatever propaganda resonates with their ruling class
That’s not exactly what I said. We have absolutely experienced central planning in real life. The USSR is the maximalist example. And we learned from it. There were major problems with central planning that had nothing to do with the decay of the revolutionary state into the oligarchy of liberalism
But before the USSR degenerated, it was not an oligarchy and they used central planning to great effect in ending famine, raising the standard of living, and defeating the fascist military axis
And as I said, China is not an oligarchy and while they do have a market, they heavily use central planning for exactly what the communist analysis indicates it is needed for - bringing about the conditions of the liberation of the working class
The non-ruling class is, for the most part, irrelevant as seen in all past and current systems
This is not at all true. Under capitalism, the ruling class is the bourgeoisie, or the owners. The non-ruling class is the workers. Under capitalism, the workers are not irrelevant at all. They must be appeased, they must be pacified, and they must be enlisted in cross-class collaboration. All policies under capitalism are evaluated on the basis of how it will affect the appeasement, pacification, and collaboration of the working class
In a socialist state, the ruling class is the working class and the owning class is absolutely not irrelevant. Policies must be evaluated as to how they ensure the owning class does not gain influence over the state, how the constant pressure of corruption and international trade relations and foreign policy push for the owning class to grow that influence, and what must be done to curtail that influence constantly
The non-ruling class has never been irrelevant, under any system
If you are a small elite group of people calling the shots you are an olgiarchy
Then literally every representative democracy in the history of the world has always been an oligarchy. You can’t run a country of 500M with 250M people being government decision makers. The question is what makes them “elite”. Did you know that in the USSR every single official was subject to recall at any time? Did you know that in order to hold office in China you actually have to study and pass competency exams and that the current elected leader, Xi Xinping, failed his entrance exams multiple times and was not allowed to participate in politics until he passed? These projects did not have hereditary leadership. They did not have leadership on the basis of wealth. There are more members of the Communist Party of China than there are people who vote in elections in the USA. And the Communist Party of China is constantly engaging in outreach to all citizens all over the country and adapting its policies to the needs of the people.
Again, I don’t think we disagree about oligarchy in the degeneration of the USSR, but the idea that every communist country is an oligarchy is a propaganda narrative of the oligarchs in the US and UK
China, for instance, ticks off more boxes of fascism than even the US
It really doesn’t. Just look at criminal justice and it’s obvious. The USA rate of criminal justice supervision (prison, parole, probation) is almost 13x bigger than China’s. The recidivism rate of the USA is at least 4x worse than China’s.
Then there’s the nature of fascism, which is a reactionary formation of liberal capitalism defending against the threat of working class organizing. There’s a reason why fascism emerged after the Bolshevik revolution. China is not this. In fact, China today is the result of a peasant revolt, that focused entirely on meeting the needs of the peasants. There is an unbroken line of history from the peasant revolt to the present today. There are grandparents in China that remember harvesting rice in a subsistence living under the fascist KMT (or even Japanese) and today are using self-driving electric cars to get to and from their multi-generational home. Same peasant. Same government.
You need to reevaluate your assessment that China is somehow more fascist than the USA. Remember, the USA is the model that Germany built the Third Reich from, and when it was clear they would lose, the USA saved 10k Nazis from justice, and when they formed NATO they staffed NATO high command with Nazis, and they organized a covert operation through NATO (Gladio) to recruit, organized, fund, arm, and train nazis and neo-nazis all over Europe. The atrocities that the Third Reich committed were all things they lifted from France, England, Spain, Portugal, and The Dutch, including gas chambers, slavery, mass displacement, apartheid, etc
I am not convinced their prior policies were effective considering the millions of Chinese that died from starvation
You’re not convinced because you haven’t done the reading. Even shitty a.i. slop is capable of seeing this. You don’t understand that the millions who died of starvation during the 4 Pests campaign was an extreme peak of famine-related deaths that were happening in China literally every 2 - 3 years prior to the revolution. And you likely don’t have a mental model of the time involved. Yes, lots of people were poor and dying when the revolution took place. Yes, even more died when the revolution tried to fix it with ineffective policies based on incorrect analysis. But all of that happened in the very early phases. Capitalist reforms didn’t start in China until 1978. The revolution happened in 1949. I know that based on how we normally think of history that has to mean that if there was a major famine before Deng’s “opening up” that clearly everything was horrible prior to 1978. That’s just not the case. The 4 Pests campaign that caused those millions of death was in the middle of those years. They spent a decade improving the quality of life for the masses, and then they tried to solve their famine problem and fucked it up beyond conscience. And then they recovered, and continued to improve people’s lives. It’s wild because it just doesn’t compute, but the reality is that in both the USSR and China, they achieved mass poverty alleviation in less than 30 years while it took liberal democracies between 100 and 150 years to get anywhere near it.
Saying this to a dead person (that their policies were effective for ending poverty) is nonsensical
It’s not, but you’re not being expansive here. You mean to say telling someone who died from poverty, not just anyone. No one, literally no one anywhere, says the 4 Pests campaign was a correct policy. I think what’s happening here is you’re assuming that “policies for ending poverty” are a monolith called “communism” and either they were “right” or “wrong”. The reality is that communist projects design and implement tens of thousands of policies.
Replies (1)
-
That’s not exactly what I said. We have absolutely experienced central planning in real life. The USSR is the maximalist example.
Current economic planning is most likely going to evolve into something like computer controlled central planning.
scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti…
I have often wondered if communism could have been more successful if it had the processing power and networking capabilities of the modern Internet. I am of course permanently excluding China (because billionaires and communism don’t mix). So don’t bother, besides we both know they are a fascist olgiarchy. Number 4 in weapons dealings in the world now! Supplying African nations weapons that are already on both sides of the conflict used to kill civilians. Maybe it is time for another one of those communist scientific adjustments!
That’s why communist policies are inclusive of the full spectrum of social possibilities, because we cannot compartmentalize our policies
This is a very western and idealist communist viewpoint. For instance, transgenders are supported by western communists but it is a mixed bag with non-western. Your ideology has apparently blinded you to harsh realities. I totally get your idealism though as it is another trait I appreciate in people. Or perhaps you are fine with the harsh sentences some communist claiming countries have dealt out to non-conformists. Or maybe it is even a no true communismman thing.
USSR degenerated, it was not an oligarchy
The USSR was always a oligarchy, not sure why you think olgiarchy is anything more than rule by minority.
China is not an oligarchy
I guess if you keep repeating it then it must be true?
heavily use central planning for exactly what the communist analysis indicates it is needed for -
The Soviet state used centralized economic and political control to grant material privileges and high living standards to party elites. Is this what the communist scientist determined what was necessary? I am being rhetorical of course.
bringing about the conditions of the liberation of the working class
Still waiting unless that 6 day a week 12 hour a day work week is what you are talking about. Once again we see human nature pushing past policy. Policy is ignored so why does it even exist but as a lip service and a lying rhetoric used to cover up massive exploitation.
There’s a huge difference between an analysis and “rhetoric”, and no one is waiting for the “right” implementation. Communists explicitly reject the possibility of such a thing.
This is patently false. Communist claiming nations most certainly waited or even created the environment to implement their rhetoric. Communist regimes use coercion, military force, and political pressure to expand and maintain communist systems. This is where modern day criticism and even extreme historical terms like Red Fascism come from.
Your constant reframing with communist idealism, which I suspect is really your idealism meant to portray communism in as positive light as possible, is repetitive.
We bring about the conditions of our liberation on the basis of our analysis, our policies, and our behaviors being commensurate with reality
This is historically inaccurate as most of the time it was fly by the seat of your fucking pants. Perhaps this is more of modern day re-envisioning of what communism could have been. Experiments are transformed into a complicated explanation of why party is always right. It reminds me of how Americans unlike me try to romanticise things like the American Revolution or even worse the founding fathers. The kind of bullshit party towing liberals will tell you with a straight face.
This is not at all true. Under capitalism, the ruling class is the bourgeoisie, or the owners. The non-ruling class is the workers. Under capitalism, the workers are not irrelevant at all.
I said for the most part. Please get off your soap box and stop pretending the masses dictate policy and are anything more than an afterthought to the oligarchies that exist all over the planet. Please tell me how capital cares about the workers as they imagine a world run by AI and robots. You are so last century.
In a socialist state, the ruling class is the working class and the owning class is absolutely not irrelevant. Policies must be evaluated as to how they ensure the owning class does not gain influence over the state, how the constant pressure of corruption and international trade relations and foreign policy push for the owning class to grow that influence, and what must be done to curtail that influence constantly
That’s got to be one of the worst description of a socialist state I have ever seen. I thought you were an idealist.
Then literally every representative democracy in the history of the world has always been an oligarchy. You can’t run a country of 500M with 250M people being government decision makers. The question is what makes them “elite”. Did you know that in the USSR every single official was subject to recall at any time?
Yup, so is every government. Check. I find your 500 m to 250 m comment very unidealistic. I am impressed!
While Soviet constitutions included nominal recall provisions, in practice, electoral slate choices were strictly monopolized by the Communist Party under the nomenklatura system. Meaningful democratic accountability or spontaneous public recall of high-ranking party officials was impossible without central party approval.
That is what makes them “elite”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura
Did you know that in order to hold office in China you actually have to study and pass competency exams
China uses the Guokao (national civil service exams) for administrative and bureaucratic ranks. However, accession up the political ladder through the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) relies primarily on internal party performance evaluations, patron-client networks, and party loyalty and not open standardized testing.
and that the current elected leader, Xi Xinping, failed his entrance exams multiple times and was not allowed to participate in politics until he passed?
Hmm this is smelling like some founding fatherism. I heard that during the Cultural Revolution, Xi was sent down to the countryside as a “sent-down youth.” He applied to the Communist Youth League eight times and the Party ten times before acceptance, and he was admitted to Tsinghua University as a Worker Peasant Soldier student in 1975, a category that explicitly bypassed traditional academic entrance exams.
en.wikipedia.org/…/Worker-Peasant-Soldier_student
So I guess fail until you figure a way in? Oh the future re-envisioning stories this guy is going to get.
These projects did not have hereditary leadership. They did not have leadership on the basis of wealth.
It is not magical goodwill or meritocracy if that is what you are getting at. It is simply political power.
And the Communist Party of China is constantly engaging in outreach to all citizens all over the country and adapting its policies to the needs of the people.
Spare me the PR. You really do act like a tone deaf liberal… Or maybe like a Mormon missionary, just doing God’s work. Any insight or self reflection would definitely be helpful here. I spent a long time deprogramming myself so I know what indoctrination is like. If you need help I know some great resources.
but the idea that every communist country is an oligarchy is a propaganda narrative of the oligarchs in the US and UK
Wait, let me get this straight. The olgiarchy’s conspiracy is to get you to believe every communist country is an olgiarchy!? No sir that is because every communist claiming country is run by a small group of elites. Oligarchy is a system where power rests with a small, elite segment of society. Political scientists frequently categorize the Soviet Politburo and China’s Standing Committee of the Politburo as oligarchies because power is concentrated within an self-selecting party elite rather than distributed across the working class.
You need to reevaluate your assessment that China is somehow more fascist than the USA. Remember, the USA is the model that Germany
Nope, but can we start dunking on the US. China may suck and Russia can eat a dick, but the US oh boy are they a piece of work for the millennia. The are such a young nation but so incredibly violent and destructive. Spreading fascism to every corner of the globe. Nonstop war and abuse of international citizens. Living under the current administration is akin to having an abusive partner you can’t escape from. Okay, I guess Russia knows what that is like as well.
, the USA saved 10k Nazis from justice, and when they formed NATO they staffed NATO high command with Nazis, and they organized a covert operation through NATO (Gladio) to recruit, organized, fund, arm, and train nazis and neo-nazis all over Europe. The atrocities that the Third Reich committed were all things they lifted from France, England, Spain, Portugal, and The Dutch, including gas chambers, slavery, mass displacement, apartheid, etc
Oh this is good stuff, besides the modern day Russian disinformation nonsense. Yes, the US brought in a ton of Nazi. The US is fascist empire. While they don’t tick off every box like China they make up for it by being violent imperialists. They evolved fascism into its current form which rules the entire world which is our favorite, neofascism.
USSR and China, they achieved mass poverty alleviation in less than 30 years while it took liberal democracies between 100 and 150 years to get anywhere near it.
You don’t have to convince me that they did better things than the US. The US is a very low bar honestly. It is a lot more fun dunking on the US than it is defending communism.
Open ##4903739