6 ms·

It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D

by mantas 5y ago

marcodiego 5y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSiCEx3e-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSiCEx3e-0
virgilp 5y ago
This is unfortunately not a joke. It blows my mind that many people today don't understand that communism can only work in a primitive society (the "pure" form that many dream about) or it inevitably leads to an authoritarian dictatorship (in more advanced societies). (I wouldn't lump "socialism" in there because it's more vague; social-democracy can and does work).
- syki 5y ago
  Isn’t the issue less to do with “communism” than with concentrating too much power in too few hands? It seems to me all political systems tend toward autocracy and the only thing preventing that eventuality are robust systems in place that disperse power.
  - virgilp 5y ago
    Yeah but communism as a doctrine will inevitably lead to exactly that, concentrating too much power into too few hands. Because if you want to look for the "collective interest" of the people, then people will disagree. Musk can do rockets not because he convinced everyone that it's in our collective interest (though he may believe so) - he can do them because he doesn't have to justify the collective interest. As soon as the collective interest is a matter of doctrine, some group of people will be in charge of it, and they will by necessity suppress other opinions about what "collective interest" might be.
    - syki 5y ago
      In 1919 no one in the world would have thought the backward, fledgling Soviet Union would be the first in space. Your example is not apt.
      - virgilp 5y ago
        But it is - they could because the party leadership wanted to/ decided it was important. My point isn't that communism can't achieve anything, it's that you can't have private initiative that's against the party line - and that's not an accident of one particular implementation, that is a "feature" of communism itself. "Unanimous" agreement on the collective good/collective interests only works, at all, in small groups (primitive societies) and dictatorships. That was really my point.
        syki 5y ago
        A person (or persons) with sufficient power/influence decided to pursue space flight and it happened. Which example does the previous sentence refer to?
        mantas 5y ago
        Another person with sufficient power/influence decided that computing is evil and USSR fell behind in (micro)computers and chips terribly. Also, a lot of USSR space advancements were made thanks thanks to captured Nazi scientists. If they had to rely purely on homegrown science, they'd have had much harder time.
        syki 5y ago
        Look up Wernher Von Braun. A group of people thought Jim Crow was a great idea. A group of BP executives thought it was a great idea to not fix oil leaks in Nigeria and poison a bunch of people. I think you miss the point. People with power in any system can use that power for bad. It’s not the economic system that causes this it’s shitty humans that do.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  I think different systems work best at different levels of scale. Power needs to be accountable and visible to the people affected by it. The more local it is, the more you can safely do. NN Taleb stated it well on Twitter, I think: "At Fed level, libertarian; state, Republican; local, Democrat; family/friends, socialist."
nopenopenopeno 5y ago
If you really think that’s a useful description of Gorbeschev, where are you getting your history from? Is Cuba a “tyrannical dictatorship”? How did Pinochet fall?
- onenukecourse 5y ago
  Gorby appears to be the sole exception. Might have something to do with having close family killed in the famines, and tortured in the Gulags. Every European other regime fell under pressure from the streets. Cuba is a tyranny. They've soften up to get European investment and tourists, but they're brutal in their indoctrination, imprisonment of dissidents, etc. They're also an important (and beloved) backstop preventing American domination in L. America. Pinochet didn't fall, he basically handed over power peacefully. His (surprisingly liberal) constitution of 1980 established him as head of the armed forces (which he was until he died) and promised free elections. He allowed for a fair and free elections in '88 that he lost and whose result he respected paving the way for the 1990 presidential elections. Again he lost and respected the result. He's also a murderer who slaughtered thousands of innocents, but that's peanuts compared what the commies have wrought. Everything I wrote is a gross oversimplification. Volumes have been written for each of the three topics you glibly referenced.
  - nopenopenopeno 5y ago
    You do realize Pinochet was a capitalist dictator and the people he murdered were socialists, no? And you have to be absolutely brainwashed to believe Cuba is a “tyrannical dictatorship.”
    - onenukecourse 5y ago
      "Pinochet was a capitalist dictator" If you read my comment carefully I clearly state: - Pinochet slaughtered (tens) thousands of innocents - Cuba is a backstop to American imperialism in the region which I clearly eluded as a good thing for those L. Americans outside of Cuba (at least until Americans drop their Monroe BS). My parents are from Argentina and lost many friends, students and professors (luckily no family) to capitalist dictators. The battles of L. America literally run through my blood. I think I am very well aware who the Chilean equivalent of Videla is. Pinochet, however, must be recognized for having relinquished power unlike his Argentine capitalist counter parts and Cuban socialist counterparts. Anyway, I think I have demonstrated a little more nuance in this very complicated topic than trite single line slogans. I am not a "capitalist", whatever that means. I reject the destructive "socialism" vs "capitalism" false dichotomy.
fellowniusmonk 5y ago
Democracies never end up in dictatorships? How much historical data do we have on that? I'm pretty sure at least brazil was democratic and then was ruled by military dictatorship (juntas) for a long time. 1940s Germany as well right? I just realized I've never seen the breakdown on that for any length of time, lets say going back to the first republics? I don't know, it seems like a lot of European countries with a pluralistic party system are heavily "Christian Socialist" (pro free market, pro property ownership, pro capitalist, pro safety net) and they don't seem to be any more prone to slide into dictatorship? I've actually have never read a compiled lists of stats of what types of government make a country impervious to dictatorial rule.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  If you redefine socialism as "what most Western Europe countries do" you can have some real paradoxical views.
  - fellowniusmonk 5y ago
    I didn't.
- mantas 5y ago
  Thing is, marxist-communist-socialist countries don't even stay non-dehumanizing-regimes. Revolution happens, then terrible things kick in.. And then regime flames out over a loooong time. Usually accepting at least some parts of free market and plural democracy. Nazi (national-socialist) Germany was totally socialist. P.S. Your description of „socialism“ is a veeeery weird one. Apparently everything is socialist.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Thing is, marxist-communist-socialist countries don't even stay non-dehumanizing-regimes. There are no Marxist regimes; all “Communist” regimes are (or are derived from) Leninism which introduces vanguardism and other changes to avoid the prerequisite of developing proletarian class consciousness through mature capitalism in Marxism, and feature a (theoretically) transitional initial phase to replace development through private capitalism, which none have ever escaped from to anything that was supposed to be beyond it (though China rewrote the plan to include authoritarian quasi-private capitalism.) There's a wide array of arguably socialist non-“Communist” regimes, but all of them are democratic/market socialism that explicitly accepts plural democracy and regulated (not “free”) markets as important elements. > Nazi (national-socialist) Germany was totally socialist. This is true to about the same extent as “the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is totally a democratic republic” is true.

It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D

by mantas 5y ago

It's a shame Marxism/communism/socialism ends up a tyrannical dictatorship every time :D

marcodiego 5y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSiCEx3e-0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUSiCEx3e-0

virgilp 5y ago

This is unfortunately not a joke. It blows my mind that many people today don't understand that communism can only work in a primitive society (the "pure" form that many dream about) or it inevitably leads to an authoritarian dictatorship (in more advanced societies). (I wouldn't lump "socialism" in there because it's more vague; social-democracy can and does work).

syki 5y ago
Isn’t the issue less to do with “communism” than with concentrating too much power in too few hands? It seems to me all political systems tend toward autocracy and the only thing preventing that eventuality are robust systems in place that disperse power.
- virgilp 5y ago
  Yeah but communism as a doctrine will inevitably lead to exactly that, concentrating too much power into too few hands. Because if you want to look for the "collective interest" of the people, then people will disagree. Musk can do rockets not because he convinced everyone that it's in our collective interest (though he may believe so) - he can do them because he doesn't have to justify the collective interest. As soon as the collective interest is a matter of doctrine, some group of people will be in charge of it, and they will by necessity suppress other opinions about what "collective interest" might be.
  - syki 5y ago
    In 1919 no one in the world would have thought the backward, fledgling Soviet Union would be the first in space. Your example is not apt.
    - virgilp 5y ago
      But it is - they could because the party leadership wanted to/ decided it was important. My point isn't that communism can't achieve anything, it's that you can't have private initiative that's against the party line - and that's not an accident of one particular implementation, that is a "feature" of communism itself. "Unanimous" agreement on the collective good/collective interests only works, at all, in small groups (primitive societies) and dictatorships. That was really my point.
      - syki 5y ago
        A person (or persons) with sufficient power/influence decided to pursue space flight and it happened. Which example does the previous sentence refer to?
        mantas 5y ago
        Another person with sufficient power/influence decided that computing is evil and USSR fell behind in (micro)computers and chips terribly. Also, a lot of USSR space advancements were made thanks thanks to captured Nazi scientists. If they had to rely purely on homegrown science, they'd have had much harder time.
        syki 5y ago
        Look up Wernher Von Braun. A group of people thought Jim Crow was a great idea. A group of BP executives thought it was a great idea to not fix oil leaks in Nigeria and poison a bunch of people. I think you miss the point. People with power in any system can use that power for bad. It’s not the economic system that causes this it’s shitty humans that do.
HPsquared 5y ago
I think different systems work best at different levels of scale. Power needs to be accountable and visible to the people affected by it. The more local it is, the more you can safely do. NN Taleb stated it well on Twitter, I think: "At Fed level, libertarian; state, Republican; local, Democrat; family/friends, socialist."

nopenopenopeno 5y ago

If you really think that’s a useful description of Gorbeschev, where are you getting your history from? Is Cuba a “tyrannical dictatorship”? How did Pinochet fall?

onenukecourse 5y ago
Gorby appears to be the sole exception. Might have something to do with having close family killed in the famines, and tortured in the Gulags. Every European other regime fell under pressure from the streets. Cuba is a tyranny. They've soften up to get European investment and tourists, but they're brutal in their indoctrination, imprisonment of dissidents, etc. They're also an important (and beloved) backstop preventing American domination in L. America. Pinochet didn't fall, he basically handed over power peacefully. His (surprisingly liberal) constitution of 1980 established him as head of the armed forces (which he was until he died) and promised free elections. He allowed for a fair and free elections in '88 that he lost and whose result he respected paving the way for the 1990 presidential elections. Again he lost and respected the result. He's also a murderer who slaughtered thousands of innocents, but that's peanuts compared what the commies have wrought. Everything I wrote is a gross oversimplification. Volumes have been written for each of the three topics you glibly referenced.
- nopenopenopeno 5y ago
  You do realize Pinochet was a capitalist dictator and the people he murdered were socialists, no? And you have to be absolutely brainwashed to believe Cuba is a “tyrannical dictatorship.”
  - onenukecourse 5y ago
    "Pinochet was a capitalist dictator" If you read my comment carefully I clearly state: - Pinochet slaughtered (tens) thousands of innocents - Cuba is a backstop to American imperialism in the region which I clearly eluded as a good thing for those L. Americans outside of Cuba (at least until Americans drop their Monroe BS). My parents are from Argentina and lost many friends, students and professors (luckily no family) to capitalist dictators. The battles of L. America literally run through my blood. I think I am very well aware who the Chilean equivalent of Videla is. Pinochet, however, must be recognized for having relinquished power unlike his Argentine capitalist counter parts and Cuban socialist counterparts. Anyway, I think I have demonstrated a little more nuance in this very complicated topic than trite single line slogans. I am not a "capitalist", whatever that means. I reject the destructive "socialism" vs "capitalism" false dichotomy.

fellowniusmonk 5y ago

Democracies never end up in dictatorships? How much historical data do we have on that? I'm pretty sure at least brazil was democratic and then was ruled by military dictatorship (juntas) for a long time. 1940s Germany as well right? I just realized I've never seen the breakdown on that for any length of time, lets say going back to the first republics? I don't know, it seems like a lot of European countries with a pluralistic party system are heavily "Christian Socialist" (pro free market, pro property ownership, pro capitalist, pro safety net) and they don't seem to be any more prone to slide into dictatorship? I've actually have never read a compiled lists of stats of what types of government make a country impervious to dictatorial rule.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
If you redefine socialism as "what most Western Europe countries do" you can have some real paradoxical views.
- fellowniusmonk 5y ago
  I didn't.
mantas 5y ago
Thing is, marxist-communist-socialist countries don't even stay non-dehumanizing-regimes. Revolution happens, then terrible things kick in.. And then regime flames out over a loooong time. Usually accepting at least some parts of free market and plural democracy. Nazi (national-socialist) Germany was totally socialist. P.S. Your description of „socialism“ is a veeeery weird one. Apparently everything is socialist.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Thing is, marxist-communist-socialist countries don't even stay non-dehumanizing-regimes. There are no Marxist regimes; all “Communist” regimes are (or are derived from) Leninism which introduces vanguardism and other changes to avoid the prerequisite of developing proletarian class consciousness through mature capitalism in Marxism, and feature a (theoretically) transitional initial phase to replace development through private capitalism, which none have ever escaped from to anything that was supposed to be beyond it (though China rewrote the plan to include authoritarian quasi-private capitalism.) There's a wide array of arguably socialist non-“Communist” regimes, but all of them are democratic/market socialism that explicitly accepts plural democracy and regulated (not “free”) markets as important elements. > Nazi (national-socialist) Germany was totally socialist. This is true to about the same extent as “the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is totally a democratic republic” is true.