mwguy

Damn I posted some hot shit.

Stop saying holodomor dumbass

No Holodomor is largely just a compound word in Ukrainian that translates loosely as "to kill with hunger" or "hunger plague". Provide a different well known phrase to refer to this Genocide and popularize it. Additionally this phrase primarily arose in the USSR in the 1980s as domestic policy stopped censoring references to the genocide. It was Soviets who popularized the term, not Fascists.

This region had a famine every 5 years for 1000 years and this was the last ever famine to occur in the region

They didn't have famines that killed 50% of the native population every 5 years. Restricting internal movement and discussion of the famines and preventing domestic and foreign aid was an intentional move designed to starve those people. And the acuteness of those famines was in large part because of Collectivism breaking the logistics of farming.

Maybe you should be more concerned that there was a whole ass genocide you were unaware of in your model implementation instead of trying to hand wave the issue away.

Yes they do. You do not know any modern communists.

Please. There are so many examples of modern Communists claiming that the USSR and PRC aren't "true communism" that's it's become a meme.

because what you probably meant to say here was kulaks.

No I meant Khazaks. The Holodomor killed the Kulaks and news of it got out to the West so it got the headlines. But the same Collective Farming experiments were tried im Khazakstsn and led to mass starvation that killed over half the native population.

My apologies. Most modern Communists don't view the USSR or PRC as examples of Communism. I falsely assumed you were in the same camp. Unfortunately for me, I can't defend a Soviet Empire that caused the pain and suffering it did in Eastern Europe and Asia. Doing thing like killing half of all living Khazaks over a few years by intentionally starving them at scale, the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward which killed more people than the Holocaust in less time are the sort of things I can't defend.

The Communist system allows these genocides to happen in the name of Collectivism and hasn't had a post incident process where it thinks and adds ways to avoid these problems for the next implementation is why I can no longer support Communism. When that changes I can reconsider.

Fair

At the end of the day. I'm the marginal person Communists need to convince to have a chance at implementation. The person who hears the principles of Communism and says, "yes that would be ideal" but looks at the implementation details of Communism and says "this is severely lacking."

You see me as denigrating Communism, but the mean person is not going to see me that way.

Bonobos can be so peaceful precisely because there's so few of them. Advocating for building a society around modeling them requires a drop in population.

Marx calls for exactly the same thing. A revolution that overthrows the current ruling class and installs a new ruling class. When the bourgeoisie overthrew the monarchs and their aristocracy they installed themselves as the ruling class, Marx calls for overthrowing the bourgeoisie and installing the proletariat as the new ruling class.

This isn't a downgrade to democracy it is an UPGRADE to democracy.

This happened in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia (and in several of the Soviet satellite states), and China. In all of them but Cuba it was explicitly done by Communists in the name of Communism with the states goal of implementing Communism (Cuba was more of a Fuck Bautista thing that adopted Communism in the post).

Do you believe Democracy was "Upgraded" in those places?

No it isn't because your description above is fucking wrong. I'm telling you what Lenin and Mao's interpretation is literally right now. This is basic as fuck stuff.

I literally liked to Lenin's interpretation. Lenin literally followed that interpretation. How is it not Lenin's interpretation?

You're acting like socialist countries don't objectively provide a better quality of life than capitalist countries when compared at an equal level of development

Because they don't over time. The conclusion of WW2 gave us the ability to observe the development of nations over time split into two with one half being Communist and the other being Capitalist. West/East Germany, North/South Korea, pretty clear record there.

Your understanding of any of these topics is incredibly vulgar

I think you may have meant to use a different adjective there.

Let me leave you with this. Do you without the benefit of hindsight in the 1920s would you have been a Czarist/Cossack or a Soviet? Would you have fled to Taiwan or stayed in China in 1945? Would you have fled to Florida or joined Castro in Cuba?

Can you honestly tell me that you in those environments would not have supported the Communist revolution?

I've been nothing but honest. I think Lenin interpreted Marx's teachings and works largely correctly and implemented a revolution and sate based on that understanding. I believe Mao interpreted Marx correctly and built a state based on that interpretation.

I think the critical flaw of Communism is that it lacks the ability to self critique. Instead of something like the "USSR failed to achieve Communism because of X, Y and Z which we can correct by changing...." it says "those weren't in any fashion even tangentially related to Communis, anyway let's do exactly what they did again...." Comversley, other forms of governments don't require such religious undertows and can support significant disagreement and discussion on how to build a society.

Plausible deniability. If it was claimed to be an accident there's no one who can honestly do anything .

Marx’s critique isn’t with democracy it’s with bourgeoise-democracy.

Marx's critique isn't with democracy, it's with democracy that disagrees with him.

All you are doing here is demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between what marxists refer to as a bourgeoise-democracy and what marxists refer to as a proletarian-democracy.

I do understand the difference. The difference is that to transition from the former to the later, Marx advocates for violent revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship to "re-educate" the populace. It's practically hand waved over by Marx and modern Communists, but it's the most important part of the process. Who controls that dictatorship has all the effective powers of a dictatorship and has the ability to make life for the people they rule hell. Essentially Marx unironically created a worse version of Feudalism where there was no check on the power of the ruler(s) on the assumption that compassion.

a new dictatorship of class but one instead run by the working class (the vast majority) instead of the former ruling class (the bourgeoisie, the vast minority).

Unfortunately, even in a post revolution environment; the working class will never voluntarily choose to rule in the fashion that Marx things they would. No matter the re-education instilled.

You haven’t even read a pamphlet like the manifesto, let alone the Critique Gotha Programme that you’re linking to. I have though. And to anyone that actually HAS read these things that you’re pretending to have read you look like and absolute clown who is winging it.

My interpretation of it is essentially Lenin and Mao's interpretation of it, just with the benefits of historical hindsight. I imagine, a younger, more idealistic me in 1920s St. Petersburg would have been a proud Bolshevik with the utmost confidence in the party leadership to lead us into a glorious, worker led future. If that makes me a clown whose winging it; my only request is that I get some ranch dipping sauce so at least I can get my vibes right.

• Marx, Karl. "Critique of the Gotha Programme." Published Letter. May 1875.

Specifically section 4 is the one that explicitly rejects democracy as it's understood today. And it's how Lenin interpreted the works too (below).

• Lenin, V. I. "A Letter to the German Communists." Published Letter. Aug 14 1921.

For the church/zealots-part.

Marx obviously didn't see the correlations between his dictatorship of the proletariat and religious zealotry. But it should be obvious to the modern reader of his texts.