5 ms·

It would be nice if we had an example of a communist state which came into existence and was not immediately beset by foreign intelligence agencies, influence c

It would be nice if we had an example of a communist state which came into existence and was not immediately beset by foreign intelligence agencies, influence campaigns, and actual military invasions attempting to depose it. We've seen how capitalist regimes behave under such conditions and it's no better.

_zagj 2y ago
You have examples, like North Korea, which invaded its southern neighbor in an act of naked, unprovoked aggression five years after the peninsula was partitioned.
- _zagj 2y ago
  To the downvoters: we now know conclusively that Kim Il Sung initiated the war, and did so only with Stalin's (initially reluctant) blessing: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/cable-nos-408-410-shtykov-vyshinsky-politburo https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/cable-nos-4... And the North's military so easily overwhelmed the South's that within two months, they were driven to brink of defeat, retaining only the Pusan Perimeter on the south-eastern tip of the peninsula.
jncfhnb 2y ago
It’s probably not possible if you also throw in internal actors seizing power. Communism suggests an absence of concentration of power. If an internal actor wants more power and starts making moves, you’d have to have consensus and collective action from the rest of the group to stop them. That is both very difficult and very expensive to achieve.
- skirge 2y ago
  Communism is based on concentration of power - one party (thus one leader), every deviation from main doctrine is punished, central planning etc.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    In theory, communism is the opposite - the stated goal of Lenin was a state that would wither away as people moved to voluntary self-government. In practice, it turns into authoritarianism very different from the idealized goal.
    - skirge 2y ago
      no state(s) means one state which you can't escape so you must obey
    - unicornporn 2y ago
      Yes. "A communist state" is an oxymoron. Communism is by definition stateless. Government/governance, sure, but without a state. Rojava would probably be a better example of communism (in practice) than Soviet.
      - skirge 2y ago
        "state" is area where government is able to collect taxes and respected by other governments. Thus "communist state" is not oxymoron.
        unicornporn 2y ago
        I don't understand your point. > A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
        skirge 2y ago
        I was born in communist country. No money, only objective points to describe cost of production and egibility, no police but militia, one "united" workers party and tax in nature and goods. But no money ;D and no state ;D
    - 2y ago
realusername 2y ago
It's the other way around, all communist states were pretty much military states as it suits best the command style economy (How else would you make it work anyways?). Then starting from that, what the military does best is producing weapons.
- cempaka 2y ago
  The United States was always ahead of the Soviet Union in military spending and escalating the arms race. We even have documented statements from Western architects who said the purpose was to bankrupt the Soviets.
  - realusername 2y ago
    No, the Soviet Union was spending 20% of its GDP on the military. The US, at the height of the cold war was spending 6%. That's the only country which wasn't at war which was proportionally spending that much on the military. The Soviet Union was a military state disguised as a country, pretty much nothing outside the military really mattered there. It's even visible on the inside organisation of the Soviet Union itself (which they picked themselves, nobody asked them), which is pretty much the same as in any army, just at a country level. Sure, the US exploited that flaw but it's been there by design.
    - cempaka 2y ago
      Unfortunately one can't go to war with percentages of GDP.
      - realusername 2y ago
        Considering the only use they had of their tanks was to invade their own members, I'm not sure that's the biggest argument in their favor.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        What does that mean and how is it relevant?
andypalmer98723 2y ago
Yeah, it's always fault of capitalist regimes, isn't it?
- skirge 2y ago
  always, and it doesn't have any self-healing or self-correction
rfrey 2y ago
Is it your position that Lenin and Stalin rose to power as the result of foreign influence?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  No, it's his position that Lenin and Stalin faced foreign (or at least foreign-influenced) opposition almost immediately. Which is true. On the other hand, that excuse runs pretty thin after 1945. But the oppression was still there. So it appears that oppression was more a feature of the system. (Or at least a feature of the man - but then Lenin did it too, and Brezhnev did it perhaps less, but still enough to be oppressive, so it looks like it was a feature of the system.)
  - skirge 2y ago
    many factories in USSR were built by British and US companies, opposition as hell... Biggest enemy of USSR was winter. And summer. And Marxs and Engels ideas.
Const-me 2y ago
> an example of a communist state which came into existence and was not immediately beset by foreign intelligence Post-war Yugoslavia was such an example. As for the brutality, here’s a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_Otok#Prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_Otok#Prison
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

_zagj 2y ago

You have examples, like North Korea, which invaded its southern neighbor in an act of naked, unprovoked aggression five years after the peninsula was partitioned.

_zagj 2y ago
To the downvoters: we now know conclusively that Kim Il Sung initiated the war, and did so only with Stalin's (initially reluctant) blessing: https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/cable-nos-408-410-shtykov-vyshinsky-politburo https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/cable-nos-4... And the North's military so easily overwhelmed the South's that within two months, they were driven to brink of defeat, retaining only the Pusan Perimeter on the south-eastern tip of the peninsula.

jncfhnb 2y ago

It’s probably not possible if you also throw in internal actors seizing power. Communism suggests an absence of concentration of power. If an internal actor wants more power and starts making moves, you’d have to have consensus and collective action from the rest of the group to stop them. That is both very difficult and very expensive to achieve.

skirge 2y ago
Communism is based on concentration of power - one party (thus one leader), every deviation from main doctrine is punished, central planning etc.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  In theory, communism is the opposite - the stated goal of Lenin was a state that would wither away as people moved to voluntary self-government. In practice, it turns into authoritarianism very different from the idealized goal.
  - skirge 2y ago
    no state(s) means one state which you can't escape so you must obey
  - unicornporn 2y ago
    Yes. "A communist state" is an oxymoron. Communism is by definition stateless. Government/governance, sure, but without a state. Rojava would probably be a better example of communism (in practice) than Soviet.
    - skirge 2y ago
      "state" is area where government is able to collect taxes and respected by other governments. Thus "communist state" is not oxymoron.
      - unicornporn 2y ago
        I don't understand your point. > A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state (or nation state).[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
        skirge 2y ago
        I was born in communist country. No money, only objective points to describe cost of production and egibility, no police but militia, one "united" workers party and tax in nature and goods. But no money ;D and no state ;D
  - 2y ago

realusername 2y ago

It's the other way around, all communist states were pretty much military states as it suits best the command style economy (How else would you make it work anyways?). Then starting from that, what the military does best is producing weapons.

cempaka 2y ago
The United States was always ahead of the Soviet Union in military spending and escalating the arms race. We even have documented statements from Western architects who said the purpose was to bankrupt the Soviets.
- realusername 2y ago
  No, the Soviet Union was spending 20% of its GDP on the military. The US, at the height of the cold war was spending 6%. That's the only country which wasn't at war which was proportionally spending that much on the military. The Soviet Union was a military state disguised as a country, pretty much nothing outside the military really mattered there. It's even visible on the inside organisation of the Soviet Union itself (which they picked themselves, nobody asked them), which is pretty much the same as in any army, just at a country level. Sure, the US exploited that flaw but it's been there by design.
  - cempaka 2y ago
    Unfortunately one can't go to war with percentages of GDP.
    - realusername 2y ago
      Considering the only use they had of their tanks was to invade their own members, I'm not sure that's the biggest argument in their favor.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      What does that mean and how is it relevant?

andypalmer98723 2y ago

Yeah, it's always fault of capitalist regimes, isn't it?

skirge 2y ago
always, and it doesn't have any self-healing or self-correction

rfrey 2y ago

Is it your position that Lenin and Stalin rose to power as the result of foreign influence?

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
No, it's his position that Lenin and Stalin faced foreign (or at least foreign-influenced) opposition almost immediately. Which is true. On the other hand, that excuse runs pretty thin after 1945. But the oppression was still there. So it appears that oppression was more a feature of the system. (Or at least a feature of the man - but then Lenin did it too, and Brezhnev did it perhaps less, but still enough to be oppressive, so it looks like it was a feature of the system.)
- skirge 2y ago
  many factories in USSR were built by British and US companies, opposition as hell... Biggest enemy of USSR was winter. And summer. And Marxs and Engels ideas.

Const-me 2y ago

> an example of a communist state which came into existence and was not immediately beset by foreign intelligence Post-war Yugoslavia was such an example. As for the brutality, here’s a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_Otok#Prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goli_Otok#Prison

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]