6 ms·

I self identify as a communist, and I would say my views are fairly typical for communist folk. I don't think your comment is an accurate assessment. I know it

I self identify as a communist, and I would say my views are fairly typical for communist folk. I don't think your comment is an accurate assessment. I know it's meant to be a joke, but ending a post with "your typical XYZ" is pretty condescending. What if someone posted about, "your typical tech bro, your typical Christian, your typical Republican, etc"? I'm disappointed to see such strong disinterest in actual substantive discussion here on HN of all places.

illuminerdy 4y ago
I think you need to distinguish between "communist folk" and the people who inevitably end up being in charge in communist governments. Show me a communist country where the leaders don't profess to be "for the people" but live lives of luxury while "the people" live lives of struggle and servitude.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Is that a reasonable bar? How does Trump live? Biden? Truss? Trudeau? The UK is starting people for signs that say "not my king", the US incarcerates whole integer percentages of their population, and Canada continues to do terrible things to their indigenous population. Put more succinctly, I do believe that the US leadership lives like royals while the average worker is scraping by. I'm happy to chat, but the bar should be set equally.
  - illuminerdy 4y ago
    Except none of those people, to my understanding, are communists and none of the countries they lead are communist countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a central tenet of communism the equality of outcome for all citizens? So how does having an elite Inner Party (which there always is) that has special privilege (which they always do) translate into equality of outcomes? Last time I checked, no capitalist/free market country promised such a thing. So Trump having billions of dollars doesn't go against the very principle of the U.S. economic or social structure. To the contrary, it aligns precisely with our economic structure.
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Not quite, equality of outcome isn't necessarily the target. The most common axiom is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone. Some communities focus on workers and profit distribution - the company's profit should be directed by the workers, reinvested or paid out at their discretion (rather than collecting in the pocket of "owners"). Some focus on equality of outcome. Some are built of gift economies similar to the economies of some indigenous tribes. What most people think of as communist is the Stalinist model of the Soviet Union - an authoritarian, single party, fairly corrupt institution. The Soviets pushed their brand of communism onto other countries, which is why you see so many built on that model. (The Soviets actually attacked other communist states that were more libertarian and democratic.) I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe. There's a reason I disparage Stalinists by calling them "Tankies" and do my best not to associate with them.
      - illuminerdy 4y ago
        > "Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone." Ok, well show me the communist country that lives up to even those ideals and doesn't have an elite ruling class that has privilege and benefits above the working class and poor. > "I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe." Well, yeah. That's pretty much the only type of communism that exists. You can't choose to not live by communism in a communist country. It's by its very nature authoritarian. Because if they were, say, to allow real deviation from that economic and societal system (not the "managed" deviation you see in places like China), their system would quickly fall apart. If today I decided to go and live on a commune in Washington that functions locally under the principles of communism or socialism, I would be able to do so. Nobody could say boo. You can't decide to go and live by the principles of free markets/capitalism (again, real capitalism) in China or any other communist country.
- int_19h 4y ago
  For starters, you need to distinguish between authoritarian and libertarian forms of any ideology that permits that distinction. Bolsheviks weren't just communists - they were authoritarian communists, and they exterminated basically every other competing variety in the process of coming to power. Naturally, they backed political factions with similar views in other countries where possible, and otherwise pressured the groups that they did back to adopt the ideology.
bewaretheirs 4y ago
"inner party" is a term from the world of Orwell's "1984", but something similar existed in the Nomenklatura of the Soviet Union - an upper class of people in leadership positions who had extensive privileges not available to the average person or even the average party member. It all looks as if, regardless of the ideology of the people involved, once it actually gets power, as-built communism in a one-party state ends up structured an awful lot like feudalism...
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Yeah, there's a reason I'm against one party states and vanguard party communism. (Aka Stalinists or "tankies"). I firmly believe that any communist state needs to be a democratic enterprise, organized locally in the vein of council communism or Anarcho communism.
  - nailer 4y ago
    Do you dress in the regalia and carry the symbols of one party states and vanguard party communism?
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      Nope. I sometimes use rose motifs. I've got some hopeful images of friendly clasped hands surrounded by flowers that say things like "we win through ecosocialism". No big yellow stars, no big red flags. None of those military/guerilla style hats. I'm not opposed to hammer and sickle stuff, but I don't own any.
nailer 4y ago
> What if someone posted about, "your typical tech bro, your typical Christian, your typical Republican, etc"? I don't think any of those groups have proclaimed year zero and made all the schoolteachers into walls of human skulls, but feel free to correct me.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
> I self identify as a communist, I view self identified communists as I would self-identified Nazis. Both are horrendous philosophies that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  I'm sorry you feel this way. It might be worth learning about the different types of communist beliefs. I am, for instance, against the idea of state socialism and one party authoritarianism. I would describe myself as a "council communist", which is to say that workers should elect representatives who meet in councils. It's fundamentally a representative democracy but driven by labor power rather than capital power.

illuminerdy 4y ago

I think you need to distinguish between "communist folk" and the people who inevitably end up being in charge in communist governments. Show me a communist country where the leaders don't profess to be "for the people" but live lives of luxury while "the people" live lives of struggle and servitude.

socialismisok 4y ago
Is that a reasonable bar? How does Trump live? Biden? Truss? Trudeau? The UK is starting people for signs that say "not my king", the US incarcerates whole integer percentages of their population, and Canada continues to do terrible things to their indigenous population. Put more succinctly, I do believe that the US leadership lives like royals while the average worker is scraping by. I'm happy to chat, but the bar should be set equally.
- illuminerdy 4y ago
  Except none of those people, to my understanding, are communists and none of the countries they lead are communist countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a central tenet of communism the equality of outcome for all citizens? So how does having an elite Inner Party (which there always is) that has special privilege (which they always do) translate into equality of outcomes? Last time I checked, no capitalist/free market country promised such a thing. So Trump having billions of dollars doesn't go against the very principle of the U.S. economic or social structure. To the contrary, it aligns precisely with our economic structure.
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Not quite, equality of outcome isn't necessarily the target. The most common axiom is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone. Some communities focus on workers and profit distribution - the company's profit should be directed by the workers, reinvested or paid out at their discretion (rather than collecting in the pocket of "owners"). Some focus on equality of outcome. Some are built of gift economies similar to the economies of some indigenous tribes. What most people think of as communist is the Stalinist model of the Soviet Union - an authoritarian, single party, fairly corrupt institution. The Soviets pushed their brand of communism onto other countries, which is why you see so many built on that model. (The Soviets actually attacked other communist states that were more libertarian and democratic.) I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe. There's a reason I disparage Stalinists by calling them "Tankies" and do my best not to associate with them.
    - illuminerdy 4y ago
      > "Different socialist and communist communities interpret this differently. The fundamental baseline is no one should starve, no one should be homeless, no one should lack basic medical care -- essentially there should be a baseline safety net for everyone." Ok, well show me the communist country that lives up to even those ideals and doesn't have an elite ruling class that has privilege and benefits above the working class and poor. > "I would say yes, authoritarian communism is prone to the outcomes you describe." Well, yeah. That's pretty much the only type of communism that exists. You can't choose to not live by communism in a communist country. It's by its very nature authoritarian. Because if they were, say, to allow real deviation from that economic and societal system (not the "managed" deviation you see in places like China), their system would quickly fall apart. If today I decided to go and live on a commune in Washington that functions locally under the principles of communism or socialism, I would be able to do so. Nobody could say boo. You can't decide to go and live by the principles of free markets/capitalism (again, real capitalism) in China or any other communist country.
int_19h 4y ago
For starters, you need to distinguish between authoritarian and libertarian forms of any ideology that permits that distinction. Bolsheviks weren't just communists - they were authoritarian communists, and they exterminated basically every other competing variety in the process of coming to power. Naturally, they backed political factions with similar views in other countries where possible, and otherwise pressured the groups that they did back to adopt the ideology.

bewaretheirs 4y ago

"inner party" is a term from the world of Orwell's "1984", but something similar existed in the Nomenklatura of the Soviet Union - an upper class of people in leadership positions who had extensive privileges not available to the average person or even the average party member. It all looks as if, regardless of the ideology of the people involved, once it actually gets power, as-built communism in a one-party state ends up structured an awful lot like feudalism...

socialismisok 4y ago
Yeah, there's a reason I'm against one party states and vanguard party communism. (Aka Stalinists or "tankies"). I firmly believe that any communist state needs to be a democratic enterprise, organized locally in the vein of council communism or Anarcho communism.
- nailer 4y ago
  Do you dress in the regalia and carry the symbols of one party states and vanguard party communism?
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    Nope. I sometimes use rose motifs. I've got some hopeful images of friendly clasped hands surrounded by flowers that say things like "we win through ecosocialism". No big yellow stars, no big red flags. None of those military/guerilla style hats. I'm not opposed to hammer and sickle stuff, but I don't own any.

nailer 4y ago

> What if someone posted about, "your typical tech bro, your typical Christian, your typical Republican, etc"? I don't think any of those groups have proclaimed year zero and made all the schoolteachers into walls of human skulls, but feel free to correct me.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

> I self identify as a communist, I view self identified communists as I would self-identified Nazis. Both are horrendous philosophies that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of people.

socialismisok 4y ago
I'm sorry you feel this way. It might be worth learning about the different types of communist beliefs. I am, for instance, against the idea of state socialism and one party authoritarianism. I would describe myself as a "council communist", which is to say that workers should elect representatives who meet in councils. It's fundamentally a representative democracy but driven by labor power rather than capital power.