5 ms·
Yes, communist never had troubles with nationalism. And communism is by definition a populist ideology. The legendary elusive communist who shapeshift the momen
by nec4b 5y ago
Yes, communist never had troubles with nationalism. And communism is by definition a populist ideology. The legendary elusive communist who shapeshift the moment one points a finger at one (no true communism), is more of an idea of western leftists.
Unfortunately the communist ideals are very much alive and well, especially in those countries where communism arose from within, without an external force.
- tsimionescu 5y agoWell, "communism" in the Eastern Bloc is more appropriately called State Capitalism, it has nothing really to do with the left, socialism or communism.
- nec4b 5y agoMaybe you'll get it right next time. Then you'll have true communism, at least until it fails again. Then the kids from the last round of red nobility will call it "capitalism something" and agitate for new true communism again.
- tsimionescu 5y agoIf you believe that the USSR (or China, etc.) were actual attempts at socialism or communism, do you also believe they were democracies? Socialism, by definition, is democratic workers' control of the means of production. A socialist dictatorial state is therefore an oxymoron. If the state itself is controlled by a violent maniac (Stalin, Mao, etc.), and the state owns and controls every aspect of society, including the means of production of course, then there is simply no logical connection to socialism. The USSR and China claim(ed) they are are democratic and socialist states. The "democratic" part is obviously a lie, and was ever since the beginning, since Lenin stole the revolution - and everyone of course knows this. Why then do people believe the "socialist" part?
- nec4b 5y agoI know, every time it fails, it's not true communism. There was a running joke in communist countries on this subject too: There was once an important communist dignitary who was treating a sick cow. After the cow died, he said: "What a shame, I had so many more ideas to try!".
- tsimionescu 5y agoPlease reply to my direct question. In which way did the USSR under Stalin allow worker control of the means of production? This isn't a changing of goalposts, it is simply ignoring obvious lies and propaganda from a regime famous for its lack of regard for the truth.
- nec4b 5y agoThrough factory committees.
- tsimionescu 5y agoIf you honestly believe that the workers in a factory under Stalin could decide how much of a good they wanted to produce, or decide if they wanted to increase automation, or even decide if they were allowed to go to the toilet, then you really don't understand how the USSR worked. The Soviets (factory committees) at best held some sway during the early days of the revolution, before Lenin seized power. By the time Stalin replaced Lenin they were long since just a propaganda tool, hollowed out of any democratic control whatsoever and turned to a simple bureaucratic management unit entirely controlled by the party hierarchy.
- nec4b 5y agoIt is still socialism, even if it doesn't work as theoreticized. Flat-earthers are still flat-earthers even though their theory doesn't hold up to reality.