4 ms·

I've noticed the attempt to shift the focus to some nice-sounding ideas [of real communism]. Yet, I was talking about the exact tens of communist regimes we've

I've noticed the attempt to shift the focus to some nice-sounding ideas [of real communism]. Yet, I was talking about the exact tens of communist regimes we've already seen in XX century – neither of them turned workers into shareholders (which itself, ironically, is more specific to fascism than to socialism or communism), but all of them caused oppression, poverty, famines and A LOT of politically motivated killings. So, the comment above emphasizes the dangers of... fascism (at least some mysterious sort of it, since fascism requires industrial workers). > another form of communism (anarchism maybe?) There is no such thing, communist system necessitates a totalitarian state.

orwin 5y ago
> I've noticed the attempt to shift the focus to some nice-sounding ideas [of real communism] Man, i just typed "communism definition" for the first sentence, and i've read Marx (And Hegel, and Adam Smith) for my interpretation of Marxism. And that's true that i pass over the revolutionnary talking points, class war, and violence against property as a mean of expression. I do think they are good points, even if i disagree with Marx interpretation of the French revolution in particular (he constructed is opinion on an already constructed, "false" history), and more generally Marx vision of revolutions is romantic and written within his time. I don't think someone deconstructed Marx yet, but he should be. > neither of them turned workers into shareholders So how to you read "the workers should own their means of production" in the modern time? Do you think it is Fascism? Fascism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism Nothing to do with workers. "Far-right" ideologies in the 19th/20th century all worked around the same set of idea: * Our nation/ our folks are better than the others (more clever, more hardworking, better history...) * But we're not the best nation/folks in the world * Hence, there is a cabal against us, lead by (the Jews, the French, the colonials powers... ) * To fight them, we need a strong man/leadership. Difference between them are how they are organized. Fascism believe in a strong, central power and a strong hierarchy, strong and hard judiciary system, whereas nazism have a more decentralized vision and liked competition between actors, with less rigid rules. Japan had a bit of both, or rather, was a fascist nation with a stronger separation between civil and military power. Also, you can be fascist and have productive communism. > There is no such thing, communist system necessitates a totalitarian state. Yeah, no. Read Proudhon first, then Bakounine maybe? I think Kropotkin have strong words against Bolcheviks, and someone told me it was a great critic of Bakounine (did not read him yet, i'm into the 1730-1850, especially now that university historians are published and easily accessible)

orwin 5y ago

> I've noticed the attempt to shift the focus to some nice-sounding ideas [of real communism] Man, i just typed "communism definition" for the first sentence, and i've read Marx (And Hegel, and Adam Smith) for my interpretation of Marxism. And that's true that i pass over the revolutionnary talking points, class war, and violence against property as a mean of expression. I do think they are good points, even if i disagree with Marx interpretation of the French revolution in particular (he constructed is opinion on an already constructed, "false" history), and more generally Marx vision of revolutions is romantic and written within his time. I don't think someone deconstructed Marx yet, but he should be. > neither of them turned workers into shareholders So how to you read "the workers should own their means of production" in the modern time? Do you think it is Fascism? Fascism: https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism Nothing to do with workers. "Far-right" ideologies in the 19th/20th century all worked around the same set of idea: * Our nation/ our folks are better than the others (more clever, more hardworking, better history...) * But we're not the best nation/folks in the world * Hence, there is a cabal against us, lead by (the Jews, the French, the colonials powers... ) * To fight them, we need a strong man/leadership. Difference between them are how they are organized. Fascism believe in a strong, central power and a strong hierarchy, strong and hard judiciary system, whereas nazism have a more decentralized vision and liked competition between actors, with less rigid rules. Japan had a bit of both, or rather, was a fascist nation with a stronger separation between civil and military power. Also, you can be fascist and have productive communism. > There is no such thing, communist system necessitates a totalitarian state. Yeah, no. Read Proudhon first, then Bakounine maybe? I think Kropotkin have strong words against Bolcheviks, and someone told me it was a great critic of Bakounine (did not read him yet, i'm into the 1730-1850, especially now that university historians are published and easily accessible)