4 ms·

This is totally false. In Indonesia, the communists were winning elections left and right until the CIA installed an anti communist dictator. The same happened

This is totally false. In Indonesia, the communists were winning elections left and right until the CIA installed an anti communist dictator. The same happened in Brazil and Iraq. The CIA has taken major direct action to suppress popular communism across the world

jltsiren 2y ago
And those would have all been in the "one oppressive ideology replaced another" category. In wealthy countries, the most effective antidotes to communism were social democracy and social liberalism, which gave the working class something worth defending.
- philosopher1234 2y ago
  No they wouldn’t, communists were winning elections. Indonesia was a democracy. Neoliberalism is built on oppression. Communism was denied the right to exist by violence, not by liberation. It’s ridiculous to call it oppressive in that context.
  - jltsiren 2y ago
    Indonesia was a democracy in name only. It had no tradition of peaceful transition of power. Sukarno became an increasingly authoritarian strongman, who tried to balance power between various anti-democratic factions.
cassianoleal 2y ago
What communists were winning elections left and right in Brazil? But also... how are communists winning elections in a bourgeois democracy even remotely similar to a revolution?
- philosopher1234 2y ago
  Fair, that’s mistaken. But the hint of communism lead to US backed coup in Brazil just like half of the rest of the world. I don’t follow your point about comparison to revolution.
  - cassianoleal 2y ago
    > the hint of communism lead to US backed coup in Brazil No, the unfounded fear of communism did. All that was happening in Brazil were wildly popular base reforms around worker's rights, land reform and other very needed changes. Nothing that hasn't already happened in most wealthy democracies. > I don’t follow your point about comparison to revolution. You replied to jltsiren's comment by saying: This is totally false. (...) the communists were winning elections left and right until the CIA installed an anti communist dictator. (...) The CIA has taken major direct action to suppress popular communism across the world I apologise if I misinterpreted it, but it seemed like you were saying that: * The CIA suppressed successful communist revolutions * The CIA has done that by installing anti-communist dictators * These coups happened in countries where communists were winning elections Points 1 and 3 are contradictory. A revolution happens when the status quo regime is toppled and replaced with a different one. Communist parties getting to power via elections means they are working within the existing regime. Both cannot be true.
    - philosopher1234 2y ago
      I see, I guess I read the original reference to revolution loosely, as though gp was talking more about the rise of communism generally, not specifically by means of revolution.

jltsiren 2y ago

And those would have all been in the "one oppressive ideology replaced another" category. In wealthy countries, the most effective antidotes to communism were social democracy and social liberalism, which gave the working class something worth defending.

philosopher1234 2y ago
No they wouldn’t, communists were winning elections. Indonesia was a democracy. Neoliberalism is built on oppression. Communism was denied the right to exist by violence, not by liberation. It’s ridiculous to call it oppressive in that context.
- jltsiren 2y ago
  Indonesia was a democracy in name only. It had no tradition of peaceful transition of power. Sukarno became an increasingly authoritarian strongman, who tried to balance power between various anti-democratic factions.

cassianoleal 2y ago

What communists were winning elections left and right in Brazil? But also... how are communists winning elections in a bourgeois democracy even remotely similar to a revolution?

philosopher1234 2y ago
Fair, that’s mistaken. But the hint of communism lead to US backed coup in Brazil just like half of the rest of the world. I don’t follow your point about comparison to revolution.
- cassianoleal 2y ago
  > the hint of communism lead to US backed coup in Brazil No, the unfounded fear of communism did. All that was happening in Brazil were wildly popular base reforms around worker's rights, land reform and other very needed changes. Nothing that hasn't already happened in most wealthy democracies. > I don’t follow your point about comparison to revolution. You replied to jltsiren's comment by saying: This is totally false. (...) the communists were winning elections left and right until the CIA installed an anti communist dictator. (...) The CIA has taken major direct action to suppress popular communism across the world I apologise if I misinterpreted it, but it seemed like you were saying that: * The CIA suppressed successful communist revolutions * The CIA has done that by installing anti-communist dictators * These coups happened in countries where communists were winning elections Points 1 and 3 are contradictory. A revolution happens when the status quo regime is toppled and replaced with a different one. Communist parties getting to power via elections means they are working within the existing regime. Both cannot be true.
  - philosopher1234 2y ago
    I see, I guess I read the original reference to revolution loosely, as though gp was talking more about the rise of communism generally, not specifically by means of revolution.