3 ms·

The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Doesn't matter whether it is democratic republic, fascist, or Marxist-Leninist. For M

The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Doesn't matter whether it is democratic republic, fascist, or Marxist-Leninist. For MLs, violence is wielded on behalf of a state capitalism that constitutes itself of local governments based on local workplaces. Money historically is a substitute for a form of violence through blood debts. The USSR believed money could be replaced with restricted labor vouchers to get rid of profit incentives and better direct economic flow more efficiently. However, this central planning approach failed to integrate itself in the rapidly growing pace of global trade, leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world. The example of democratic socialism or Israel has a nuance because state capitalism by nature cannot extract profits and surplus value as well as private enterprises, but they must exist alongside them and compete instead of existing in a wholly separate economy like the Soviet bloc did.

spwa4 1y ago
> The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Bullshit. There have been many states that didn't. The violence capitalist states use does not compare to the violence collectivist states use (let's not pretend this has ended). Capitalist states have always respected the right of anyone to just walk away. Now maybe that option sucked, but it was there as a release valve. You can just refuse. Communists never did. Communists hunted tents in forests of people attempting to be self-sufficient. Hunted. That's the correct therm. Communists want and need 100% control of every aspect of life. Where you live. Where you sleep. Where you work. What you read. What you see, and especially what you don't see. And so on and so forth. > leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world. Is this how a communist states that they did things like letting 5 million people slowly starve to death because they "resisted collectivist policy"? Because that's what communists did when people refused: genocide. That's the sort of violence communism requires, according to communist states. And this is FAR from the worst communists did. > ... I've often wondered. Communist policy is directly responsible for the Russian state, for the Chinese state, for the Iranian state, for the Venezuelan state. These states are all hellholes that are attacking us. And there is nothing communists love more than blaming everyone else for the consequences of everything, and demanding restitution. Can we therefore not demand that communists and communist parties in the west, who after all are responsible: they participated in and supported the creation of these communist countries, provide the work, people and resources required to defend against the aggression of these states. After all, they are responsible for it.
- bdangubic 1y ago
  The violence capitalist states use does not compare to the violence collectivist states use (let's not pretend this has ended). Be kind of cool to back this type of BS with like a like to some cool propaganda place where you might have got this idea from… Capitalist states have always respected the right of anyone to just walk away. This made me “spit my coffee” laughing
  - spwa4 1y ago
    And yet somehow you totally ignore that every large communist state, Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, ... implemented genocide as a policy to enforce communism. Can we discuss the reasons for that? Because this thread was about violence inherent in communism. And your counterargument is essentially "look these other guys did something bad too!". You could at the very least make the oldest claim in the book "but that wasn't REAL communism".

spwa4 1y ago

> The state exists in the first place because it has a monopoly on violence. Bullshit. There have been many states that didn't. The violence capitalist states use does not compare to the violence collectivist states use (let's not pretend this has ended). Capitalist states have always respected the right of anyone to just walk away. Now maybe that option sucked, but it was there as a release valve. You can just refuse. Communists never did. Communists hunted tents in forests of people attempting to be self-sufficient. Hunted. That's the correct therm. Communists want and need 100% control of every aspect of life. Where you live. Where you sleep. Where you work. What you read. What you see, and especially what you don't see. And so on and so forth. > leading the Soviet bloc to be outpaced by the first world. Is this how a communist states that they did things like letting 5 million people slowly starve to death because they "resisted collectivist policy"? Because that's what communists did when people refused: genocide. That's the sort of violence communism requires, according to communist states. And this is FAR from the worst communists did. > ... I've often wondered. Communist policy is directly responsible for the Russian state, for the Chinese state, for the Iranian state, for the Venezuelan state. These states are all hellholes that are attacking us. And there is nothing communists love more than blaming everyone else for the consequences of everything, and demanding restitution. Can we therefore not demand that communists and communist parties in the west, who after all are responsible: they participated in and supported the creation of these communist countries, provide the work, people and resources required to defend against the aggression of these states. After all, they are responsible for it.

bdangubic 1y ago
The violence capitalist states use does not compare to the violence collectivist states use (let's not pretend this has ended). Be kind of cool to back this type of BS with like a like to some cool propaganda place where you might have got this idea from… Capitalist states have always respected the right of anyone to just walk away. This made me “spit my coffee” laughing
- spwa4 1y ago
  And yet somehow you totally ignore that every large communist state, Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, ... implemented genocide as a policy to enforce communism. Can we discuss the reasons for that? Because this thread was about violence inherent in communism. And your counterargument is essentially "look these other guys did something bad too!". You could at the very least make the oldest claim in the book "but that wasn't REAL communism".