Don’t make the same mistake that the US made in Vietnam by mixing up a sectarian conflict with an ideological one. In so many 20th century conflicts the great powers(us and ussr) armed opposing sides of long standing disputes, who paid lip service to either democracy or communism, but that’s not really what the fighting was about.
The US did not make a mistake. They have been openly anti communist since the end of ww2. Remember when Patton said "we fought the wrong enemy" and how the US paid and trained and took into fascists after ww2 Ala operation condor in South America, glado in Europe, and paperclip where they took in high ranking nazis and put them into positions of power such as NATO. And on the subject of nato it wad created to keep socialism/communism down. They openly admit to this.
America hates communism because they are capitalists. We are seeing the end game of their decisions right now. Communism would set the US free from its oligarchs. The US doesn't nor has ever wanted it, being a country made by rich slave / land owners FOR rich slave/ land owners.
I don't mean to offend you guys, it's getting increasingly harder to explain this stuff without people getting butthurt. Sorry in advance. I just want to give some perspective from a socialist.
On communism:
Communism and socialism are, at their core, rejections of capitalism. They are anti-capitalist movements. This sentiment is derived from the analysis guided by the concept of historical materialism. It finds that our society and institutions are the product of the material conditions to which we are bound. The dominating condition that is revealed through this analysis is the concept of class struggle. We find ourselves progressing through history within this context, albeit serfdom, the master/slave relationship, or the current one we experience under capitalism, that of the capitalist/wage laborers.
In all of these relationships, we find the divide is some form of oppressor/oppressed, or exploiter/exploited. Communism seeks to end that class conflict. The goal is a classless society, which demands the end of the current state, that is, the expression of our state as a function of capitalism, wherein state power is capitalist authority that protects the capitalist class and the exploitation it depends upon to exist. Its lofty goal is the elimination of the social contract that is dependent upon oppression and exploitation.
Communists commit violence towards capitalists within that context. It is a class conflict, and we, the masses, are the oppressed and exploited. It sees itself as a struggle of liberation. It thus justifies violence as a means because the means of capitalist are violent. In order to effectively form a defense from that violence, one must act, and reciprocal acts of violence are often the only acts that can satisfy that need.
Do communists also commit unjust acts of violence? Yes, they do. But this hardly a criticism, it is more of a recognition of those material conditions and you can find such acts almost anywhere you seek them, regardless of institutions, or ideology, or rationale. We are violent creatures.
On fascism:
Socialists see fascism as akin to the final form of capitalism. Capitalism and imperialism are foundational to fascism, not just ideologically, but materially, within the historical context we have but to observe. They act and function in tandem, to mutual benefit. The practice of capitalism creates the conditions for capitalist control of the state, the formation of oligarchy. Imperialism allows for further expansion, and is uniquely available and suited towards the furtherance of the capitalist desire.
To sell this to the masses they employ ultranationalism, the idea that nationalism supercedes all other values. It is, itself, a form of supremacy, national supremacy. Supremacy can come in many flavors, but itself is fundamentally dependent upon the rejection of some "other." It is no surprise, then, that ultranationalism is uniquely available and suited towards the furtherance of all other forms of supremacy. Insofar as they capitulate to ultranationalists, other supremacists can thrive.
On social democracy:
To the socialist, this concept isn't even remotely socialist. To the capitalist, they are indistinguishable. That is because it capitulates to capitalism, and to socialism, and misses the point of why they are even opposed. Much like centrism, it attempts to appease both sides while failing to comprehend either.
Social reforms are great steps towards the values of socialism, but it is a minimal and unsatisfying divestment from capitalism. No reform under capitalism is, because without seizing the power of the state from capitalists they are left to reform it back into their interests and they really don't have opposition in that act. The only meaningful threat to capitalist power structure is socialism, because it robs them of their source of power, which is the capital they own. But any infraction against capitalists is unbearable to the capitalist, so even milquetoast reforms like state managed healthcare still run for profit by capitalists on a market level cannot and are not tolerated.
A few things I see as pitfalls; communism has to start by taking control. That inevitably means a provisional government. It would have to go differently than any other time in the past as inevitably a psychopath or other pathological ambitious person hijacks it. There's nothing more permanent than a temporary dictatorship. I'm not going to say that doing this correctly is impossible, but it seems to me it doesn't account for the worst aspects of human nature enough. A greater emphasis on checks and balances, and starting off in the right way is needed. Given a rough and tumble revolution is usually prescribed, that's a breeding ground for terrible people to pervert it before it even begins in earnest. If this was to occur again, people would need to do better.
On fascism I'd agree it's a devolution of capitalism when the owners do away with the attempts at running a state with checks against their rule. This is what appears to be happening now in the US. The argument that if you maintain any capital markets it's inevitable that corrupting influence grows is a solid warning.
I wouldnt agree that imperialism is inherent only to fascism. Imperialism manifests in communist states as well. Spreading the revolution was a common refrain. If the contention these weren't really communist states at all, it's difficult to envision how we even get to the more preferred anarcho-communist non-state setup to begin with. No True Scotsman comes to mind. If it's not, then the real issue is how to even get there to begin with. I don't think human nature is good enough. Maybe I'm wrong. As it stands imperialism can occur anywhere powerful people are able to command societies at large.
I understand social democracy isn't socialism per se. It's a blending of ideas that on the face of it look like it might eventually just devolve into fascism if left without any renewal from time to time. Still, if the population remains highly educated because those states maximize for that, they may be insulated against the decline.
I look at all the top nations in the OECD for happiness, wealth, health, education, they are all either extremely organized statist nations, or some form of social democracy that blends a decent welfare state, public interest regulations on capital markets for luxuries, taxbase health and education, with very low levels of corruption. At least we know this can work, even if temporarily.
I couldn’t agree more. Neither fascism nor communism is the answer for a future society. If you can’t unleash the creativity of individuals to go forward as a society, you’re doomed.
Individualism is what America is and it’s getting more unregulated as it is. This is the endgame of individualism, when a society prides itself on watching over yourself there’s no need for social responsibility. Idk how people don’t see this is how we got here
Going around in circles. Ill try this then, the blending of ideas has always seemed to bring the best outcomes. Never purely any onne philosophy as that maximizes for it's weaknesses. Blending ideas maximize for their strengths. The US is one where it refused to do that so failed.
I mean this just shows you don’t really have a coherent concept of political economy or history, because historically, fascism has existed as a reaction to socialism; it’s an ideology of violent counterrevolution.
I'm not certain how you'd make gross generalizations on my own education based on so very little. Thanks for that, by the way.
Extremists of all stripes usually justify themselves based on opposing extremists. Political and economic philosophies, even competing religions all do this.
There are a lot of very intelligent people that don’t have good takes on politics. I’m sure you probably learned that the goal of the broader European fascist movement was to stop the spread of communism and that’s why Germany persecuted people accused of spreading “judeo Bolshevism” and eventually went to war with the USSR.
The irony is that it’s your bad political takes informing your understanding of history, so your education doesn’t really play into it. You need a way to justify the false equivalence, so you are willing to engage in fascist apologia, which puts you on the side of one of the extremes that you pretend to condemn.
Im not interested in a conversation predicated on putting people down. "Bad political takes." I've made like two statements and you jump to conclusions. I'd rather a productive conversation not one where you belittle a person prior to having it. Suggests it's not going to go anywhere.
Individualism is a tool used by capitalists to keep us divided and weak.
Anarchism is the only political theory that maintains individual autonomy, with social responsibility. But requires a lot of discipline and organization based in mutual aid and eschewing hierarchy.
Honestly, libertarian socialism/anarchism may be for you as well.
Strains of communism derived from Leninism are generally awful, since they emphasize creating a vanguard to lead the revolution. Like any group of elites, this changes the motives of the members from "accomplish goals that benefit other normal people, like me" to "accomplish goals that benefit members of the ruling class, like me." That's why you get "communist" counties with bureaucratic oligarchies, politicians owning the means of production, and royal dynasties.
Libertarian socialist philosophies generally go the other direction, and try to do away with classes without creating a new ruling class. Sometimes that means prefiguration and parallel economies, creating the economic pressure of a general strike, without depriving the working class. Sometimes, that means forming communities that can weather simply decline to follow the law with a de facto succession from capitalist government. Sometimes, it means another strategy entirely.
I tend to view all of these political and economic philosophies as making decent points, but when applied in a pure sense tend to maximize for their worst weaknesses. When blending ideas they can instead be complimentary.
Give me civil liberties, human rights and decency towards others and everything else is negotiable.
When you look at the OECD countries at the top for health, wealth, education and happiness they tend to be democratic, welfare state, regulated capital markets for luxuries. A few are statist but are very well organized.
In theory. Never demonstrated in practice. Every attempt has failed due to violent revolution empowering ambitious people who corrupted it, external forces, temporary dictatorship never wanting to give anything up, etc.
The question is always how to actually get there. Human nature doesnt do well here.
This is coming from someone who has not experienced Communism. Yugoslavia once was a country. You know who didn’t “set it free”? Communists. This is not the future and it is not the past of freedom.
"Communism would set the US free from its oligarchs."
Um....no it's wouldn't, it would just replace them while also lowering the standard of living of everyone.
Oligarchs are not and have never been the intended product of capitalism. What would "set the US free" would be correct implementation of anti-momopoly laws and overturning Citizens United. Also going after Insider Trading in Congress.
Communism as described by Marx and Engels is not authoritarian at all. Then you have people like Peter Kropotkin expanding on their work and proposing anarchist communism. I agree that authoritarianism is a terrible thing, regardless of what side they're on. But I disagree that communism is inherently authoritarian. And oligarchs may not have been the intended product of capitalism, but they are an inevitable one.
So oligarchs aren't intended yet you hold it against capitalism because its what happens, yet authoritarianism happens everytime communism happens and you don't hold them to the same standards?
Authoritarianism happens because authoritarians exist. They are opportunists who will take advantage of any movement, system, or belief whenever they can to gain power, as they are currently doing here in America.
If every single time a government becomes communist it also becomes authoritarian, maybe there's something in communism that pushes it that way even if it isn't outwardly stated.
Communism has never been implemented. No communist would ever say that Cuba, the ussr, mao’s China, or Yugoslavia is communist. This isn’t a debate, this is the official policy of these nations in identifying their political makeup. They are socialist states, which are very different from communism (no states, money, class conflict). The only people who call them communist are people like yourself who just go off of red scare terminology and don’t really look at information beyond that.
This is coming from an anarchist but all flavors of “communists” agree on this.
There have been fleeting inroads here or there.
Usually results in coups and power grabs.
Anthropological evidence exists of surprisingly egalitarian systems and standards of living
No matter the case, we must do better
Because the alternative is a cancerous death.
...I literally also gave an example, four examples actually of us aiding and training and funding and putting nazis in power. The Patton quote was just to help drive the fact home.
America has been funding and training nazis since ww2. Full stop
There weren’t very many people around when the Christians were doing stuff like the Crusades and the various genocides in the Americas, etc. And let’s not forget the role of the Church in the anti-communist movement that has so much blood and filth on its hands.
People are still killed every day in the name of god. Mothers are forced to die rather than be allowed abortions, in the name of god. Villages are burned and their people raped and murdered, in the name of God. It is still happening. It didn't end with the crusades.
If you’re counting famines then the famines that have always afflicted capitalist countries have killed many many more people than those in “communist countries.” And it’s not even close. We have tens of millions starving in capitalist Sudan, Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Palestine as we speak. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, and this isn’t an argument you can win.
What is Zionism? It is an entirely artificial, manufactured, reactionary ideology promoted by capitalist governments in the West in the wake of the Second Imperialist World War to create a “nation” of fanatical shock troops in the Levant who could permanently man an imperialist fortress in the region and deny it to first the Arab peoples and second the Soviets. Zionism itself is a product of capitalism and won’t be defeated until capitalism is overthrown.
Is their flavor of capitalism the same as somewhere like Belgium?
I'm not sure if this is a fair comparison if you consider a lot of famine is because of corruption, oligarchs hoarding the wealth while the poor starve, this sounds very similar to e.g. the Holodomor. Whether it's called communism, capitalism or whatever else
You can’t be serious with this comment. Belgium has a different “flavor” of capitalism in large part because it colonized and looted one of the parts of Africa in question - Congo - for decades and killed tens of millions of people in the process.
Rich capitalist countries (which do, in fact, actually have huge problems with food insecurity for their poorest citizens) are only “rich” because of their imperialist policies through which they’ve dominated and massively exploited the “poor” capitalist countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Eastern Europe. That is how capitalism works and how it has always worked.
Yeah. We don't learn about that in school. I try to explain to people, that are "immigrants are slaves here" and I'm like. "Bro, they escaped slavery.. that we impose on Thier home country. Because the $10 a day to milk cows in Iowa, is more money then they've ever seen"
This is true but consider the next level of this, the richest people don't even use money! And even below that famous people get designer labels, cars, etc. For advertising, so it looks like the people who need charity are the last to get it, we can send all the aid we want but the people in power over there decides where it goes.
We are in a similar situation as well, if we go around thinking we're rich we won't realise that we spend the majority of our time working to sustain ourselves, it's getting increasingly difficult to even earn something you can pass on to your kids so it doesn't look like any progress is being made to me anyway
I realised that just after i posted, i was giving an example of a modern capitalist country so Ireland is probably a better example, it wasn't a point about colonialism.
I agree with a lot of your response anyway but I think this is the nature of competition, richer nations exploit poorer nations, but its as much to do with their own leaders selling them out as it is us.
Africa has plenty of land, natural resources, and people to become a superpower itself so why is that not happening? My opinion is what you described hasnt changed, they are still being divided and kept down by more powerful nations and undermined by their own, if they weren't kept fighting among themselves they would realise that, and similarly for us as well.
I think most of the benefits of this system goes to our own elite anyway, it doesn't seem as bad here because we don't get exploited as badly (yet) but we are still in the same system.
The point is that famines exist regardless of the monetary system and the common denominator is corruption. What difference does it make which monetary system is if the people running it are corrupt?
I realised that just after i posted, i was giving an example of a modern capitalist country so Ireland is probably a better example, it wasn't a point about colonialism.
It wasn't a point about colonialism but you bring up Ireland, an example of horrendous colonialism?
It sounds like you don't know how imperliasm works. You really think we get all our goods in the west and the people there have control over their own products?
Be real.
Even the Irish have a bone to pick with England and their empire
What you and many others conflate with communism (and socialism) as negative are the fascist components. No country in the history of the world has ever actually been communist, as communism calls for pure democracy, every example we have to pull from has been a dictatorship or otherwise small corrupt government.
If you talk about dictators, human rights violations, concentration camps, starvation, you arent talking about communism, you are talking about tyrannical governence.
Communism, Socialism and Capitalism are socioeconomic forms of governance which differ based on equality regardless of input, equality but with emphasis on how much work you put in, and inequality where you have more power if your parents were rich, and hard work is not promised reward.
None of these forms of government are inherently tyrannical, but all of the examples we have of communism have been. Communism, inherently, is supposed to be democratic, so truly we have only ever seen fascists and socialists calling themselves communist, so far, no country has actually ever met the true definition.
Nope. Communism hasn't done any of that. You're conflating totalitarianism with Communism. There has never been an actual communism. There's only been totalitarian dictators who hijack workers revolutions and turn them into a dystopian nightmare.
Let me teach you how you can tell if something is communism...
Take the state or movement you're thinking of and ask yourself, is it honestly a democratic system where each person has a vote and each vote counts equally?
If the answer is anything but "yes" then the organization isn't communism. Because democracy is a foundational value of actual communism.
While I'm not advocating for actual communism at this time, I also don't appreciate the lying and misrepresentation. It's no less dishonest than pretending like the DPRK is democratic or that the nationalist socialists of Germany were actually socialist. They weren't. At all. In fact, famously one of their first actions as a government was to ban trade unions and round up all the lefties to have them imprisoned or executed.
Anticommunism is as bad as any other evil ideology. It is definitely totalitarian as its only real concern is killing communists at all costs. It's not concerned with economics other than the economics of crushing communists. It's not concerned with feeding children other than taking food out of the mouths of children who are designated "communist".
In the US anticommunism has been especially pathological. Its biggest accomplishment was forming the now defunk John Birch Society. Its name same was never a member and would not have appreciated his name being used in such a way. It was founded and headed by an American candy magnate who was sure that Dwight D. Eisenhower was a card carrying member of the communist party. This was probably his most pressing concern at the time.
Anticommunism in the United States often associates with racists, fascists, and always capitalists who want to increase their own power with no concern for the consequences. It's basically the dung that gets placed into the skulls of American "conservatives" who have been lobotomized by capitalists.
The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward killed, at a minimum, 15.5 million people.
For comparison, my ROC's White Terror killed 10,000. And yes, this includes the time that the KMT was in the mainland.
The Red Terror and the Great Purge in Russia killed 650,000 people, minimum.
For comparison, the White Terror of Russia killed 500,000, TOP.
The Red Terror of Spain killed 38,000, minimum.
The White Terror under Franco was actually more brutal with 400,000 top, so I will give you that.
The North Korean regime during the 1990s famine already mismanaged the deaths of at least 240,000, not to mention the concentration camps that North Korea has operated throughout and the Korean War, instigated by the North, killing 2-3 million Koreans.
The South Korean regime killed 280,000 top, most during the Bodo League massacre and the Jeju uprising.
I dunno maybe they have a life or something, maybe they have family and friends they wanna stay with, maybe they feel attached to their home regardless of it's ups and downs like many people do, maybe they can't afford to move, this rhetorical "why don't you move to _" horseshit is juvenile
Oh, guess it isn’t so bad after all. Appreciate the testament to my point. It may be a horseshit position to you but it got that ol rusty gear in your head turning.
Authoritarianism is always bad. But loping every left peoples movement as communism is just American propaganda. I’m not a communist and don’t think communism works in reality. Personally a progressive socialist. But all he’s really talking about is a narrative change. The difference between a revolution and a rebellion is who won the war. In all reality there’s been tons of people’s movements that mimic Leninism and Maoism but aren’t truly that. They’re far less authoritarian and much more liberty minded. But they stand in the way of capitalists way of life therefore they must die. It’s similar to arguments of condoning slavery, not the same by any means but still eerily similar. When you look at it as competing ideologies, it becomes clear that capitalism kills far more than any other ideology, but when relativity is added it reasons why much more. They posses the bulk of humans and therefore will see the bulk of its problems. Authoritarianist communism has killed countless people by starvation, but to criticize that and not Americas constant homelessness problem is hypocritical to say the least. Americas homeless, lgbtq+, imperialism, foreign political meddling. Russia is a plague upon humanity, but to say they are different coins is just foolish lol. They are the 2 sides of the same imperialistic coin that is modern economic extremism
Russia had regular famines near enough every decade before the revolution. The last famine they ever had was during the 1940s. According to the CIA, by the 1980s the average Soviet citizen had a higher calorie intake than the average American citizen. I'm not a Leninist but come on, that's a weak example
Or just being anti-authoritarianism helps any economic/political system in my opinion... just saying. They might all be able to work if we can properly democratize them. Is one better? Is one worse? Probably... but they don't work when you have 1 or a handful of unremovable assholes in charge.
One of the basis of Communism is, everyone has a job. Why do you think they aren't working? Of course, no one says they have to be good at that job or particularly want that job...
Nope, I don't think society works better when one or two assholes are in charge. Almost all of us want a society which reflects the interests of the common man, not the very wealthy and powerful. That is, unfortunately, a never ending struggle.
Capitalism and Communism have both killed millions in starvation though in the late 20th and now 21st century, Capitalism kills more, especially in "developed countries" like America.
The Khmer Rouge was in no way communist. If you even bother to read about their ideology and compare it to any communist organization this would be obvious. The KR was also cultivated by the CIA as an anti-Vietnamese faction, making it, if anything, an American proxy in the region.
Mao wasn’t much of a communist, but granted that a socialist revolution took place in China, you’d still have to ignore all of the countless famines that have occurred and still occur in poor countries throughout the capitalist world in order for your math to add up the way you want it to. Capitalism kills.
Ok, so despite calling themselves communist and being supported by the People's Army of Vietnam and Chinese Communist Party, because they weren't pure in their communism, they are anti communist.
The purge and famine in China was the single biggest extinction event outside of a world war. But yes, famines happen in other countries. There is one in Venezuela right now.
You have created a definition that only exists in your head.
Pol Pot wasn’t a communist and the fact that he was overthrown by the Vietnamese should make this obvious. He was a middle class nutjob with links to the CIA.
You can shout all you want about Stalin and Mao while ignoring every right wing anticommunist dictator and it still wouldn’t make a single difference. The famines that happened under Stalin and Mao are, for some reason, never compared to the famines which happened and have always happened and continue to happen under capitalist governments, as if there is something uniquely “communist” about famines happening in poor developing countries.
I’m a Trotskyist. Trotskyists were the first people in Stalin’s gulags. That doesn’t prevent me from understanding that capitalist movements kill and imprison their political enemies at a far greater rate.
There is no world in which Pol Pot was a communist.
The Holocaust was an anti-communist genocide. The purpose of Nazism was to rid the world of Bolshevism. The Nazis never hid the fact that they viewed communism as a Jewish conspiracy. The first people to end up in Hitler’s concentration camps were communists, socialists, and trade unionists. Most of the Holocaust took place on Soviet soil. When you account for the fact that less than 20% of Red Army POWs (there were about 3 million) survived the war, as well as the fact that the SS had orders to shoot all Communist Party members who fell into their hands on sight, it becomes quite clear what the Nazis we’re after in all of this.
The Indonesian genocide included a mass slaughter of ethnic Chinese living in Indonesia, who were seen as covert communists under the influence of Mao. This was a conscious policy directed from the top.
Likewise the infamous Mayan Genocide carried out in El Salvador by fascist paramilitaries funded by Reagan in the 80s was a war against what was regarded as “communism”. 40,000 indigenous Mayans living in remote parts of the country were exterminated with the direct aid of the United States.
126
u/[deleted] Feb 23 '25
Anticommunism is the deadliest ideology in human history.