The reason of the confusion is clear.
The US propaganda has always equated Communism and totalitarianism.
It is bonkers that people in the USA cannot distinguish between an economic system and a political system.
Those two are distinct things. True communism is very democratic. But reading the Communist manifesto is heretic in the US and you are left with what your leaders tell you.
The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.
Right wing totalitarian dictators also use starvation of their own people as means of control.
What you are experiencing in the US is totalitarianism and while it hasn’t gotten to USSR levels, it is going on that direction.
Food for thought: study the political system in China, you’d be surprised how it’s actually more democratic than the current USA. Yes, the CCP controls the nominations. Now, tell me if there is true plurality in the US, two right wing parties selecting their candidates without any real popular input.
Really you’ve been bamboozled to think there is real democracy in the US.
True communism is very democratic.
At some point, you have to get passed “true whatever” and accept certain institutions already exist.
Also helps to recognize that communism as a movement has been anti-colonialist first and democratic only as it serves the former cause. Communists aren’t receptive to a liberal democracy that allows half the people to sell out the other half.
Folks love to get lost in the sauce talking about what Marxism really truly means, as an ideology, without asking why people adopt it or how they apply it in practice.
that allows half the people to sell out the other half.
Do you actually think that’s worse than the elite deciding who is going to starve and who’s going to be disappeared to maintain their power?
Why bother pretending to return the means of production to the worker only to rob them of their voice?
The Russian Revolution was communist but the USSR was never communist.
Yes. But what does that mean? If I have a recipe for potion of immortality, but anyone that drinks the resulting potion dies instead, it’s a bad recipe. It doesn’t matter its promise of immortality sounds good.
Communism makes good promises. However, every time you have a communist revolution, it ends up being authoritarian instead. What does that say about the communist political system?
Ill be the patsy: You can’t make rules to eliminate human greed / lust for power?
I’m very simplistic with this stuff and haven’t studied it, but that seems to be the fundamental limitation with communism. Would work great with robots but we’re more ‘complex’ with our subconscious bias, unexamined motives and insecurities driving our actions.
I read a Chinese visual novel where society actual DID manage to eradicate humanity’s greed/lust for power.
The biggest issue with the depicted society is that people live out their lives in ways deemed safe by the state. No one who lives in the society sees any problem with this, since their needs are cared for, and they’re allowed to freely pursue interests the state considers safe. The society determined that any culture that existed before their rise to power has to be destroyed or locked up - introduction of such items can have a majorly destabilizing effect, and bring greed/lust for power back.
Every time a capitalist system is implemented the oligarchy grows and seizes power and some corrupt oligarchs usurp the power of the people. What does that say about capitalism? I think your generalized question is terribly bad faithed when every can point out the US system and straight capitalism is a failure also. Rather then generalized ideas and theory we look at all the systems and see what does work and how we can keep the power in the hands of people
I think the issue is corruption, power, and control. To have a capitalist society you must allow businesses do what they want or they will seize power. In a communist society power is centralized when it is focused on the state as a communistic in which power and control when questioned or control loosened gets cracked down.
Democratic Republicans are great but there is a few problems when they move so slow. One, what if the charter is never fixed when we add more rights. We just tack it on as precedent and never amend the charter.
Second,if the population is growing is it still representing people properly. I think having a representative for every 1 million people is to huge. And the fact we have disparities as large as 1 to million but then some have as low as 1 in 250k. Is unequal.
Third. I don’t think as long as businesses hold power over an individuals life businesses should have political power. They hold to much currently. Also the fact through a business they can unlimitedly donate money but i as an individual can only spend $2,500(somewhere around there is the campaign cap)on a candidate is insane power wise.
Fourth a mixed economic/ business system would be wonderful a more planned economy by what citizens need would be nice. Also economy and business shouldn’t be running the country. The individual people should.
Fifth States are stupid unless they can leave. The lines/borders are arbitrarily stupid and the fact the power federal is based on the lines fucks us up. If so chooses states should be able to break apart and make local states of the people so it is easier to have democratic control over your local area. Yes this means almost every state would become major cities and then the rural areas. Unless they want to partner with a city.
I don’t see how what you write relates to what I write other than what-aboutism directing attention to (non-fatal) issues of capitalism instead of addressing the fatal issues of communism.
More like every time there’s been democratically elected socialists or communists, western powers intervene with staged coups, assasinations, or embargos.
Even if that’s true, so what? You are just pointing out one possible reason why communism doesn’t work in reality. Still doesn’t work.
If I say my immortal potion recipe would work in an alternate reality where humans didn’t breathe oxygen, it does not make it any more useful. Equally, in our reality, coups, assassinations and embargoes exist. If a political system can’t withstand them, it is not useful.
This is like saying the idea of solar panels is bad because capitalists work against them to destroy their reputation. Judging a system based on the assumption that theres someone else trying to destroy it is very simple minded.
A political and economic system is not some random piece of infrastructure, like a solar panel. It’s more comparable to a padlock. It’s entire point is to manage human nature. If all people were benevolent and willing to work for collective good on their own, we wouldn’t need political systems at all. Neither would we need padlocks. A padlock that can’t hinder an intruder is a bad padlock. A political or economic system that can’t handle human nature (greed, lust for power) is a bad system.
In many of these cases, the political system which couldn’t withstand coups were democracies. Does this mean that democracy isn’t useful? Are you saying that democracies should forbid socialists from being elected since if they get elected then america will intervene and the democracy will cease to be useful? Sounds like you don’t care for democracy and self-determination of nations. Bonus points will be awarded for being able to make your point without a potion metaphor.
My entire point is that political systems like democracies are not isolated from economic systems. Democracies fail when combined with communism, because all power is concentrated in the political apparatus, leaving no leverage for the rest of the population. Then, seizing power and removing democracy is too easy.
More like you have a simple and easy to follow recipe for cake. You and a friend are following it dutifully. Just before the last step of the recipe your friend gets a call from their partner. Your friend then pushes you out of the kitchen and locks you out. The cake is served frosted in your friends freshly cut hair clippings.
The USA is a massive country of 330m+. Literally tens of millions of us have no delusions about this.
Call me naive if you want but I think we might want to aim for slightly more than another flavor of illusory democracy.
Although I have to say that the primary selection process in the US, while deeply flawed, is far more open for insurgent candidates than the Chinese system. See Mamdani for a recent example of how democratic elites don’t have total control of the outcomes.
i love uma
Whoma is dat?
As a note, communism involves some ideas that are impossible or nearly so.
Imagine a society in which every person has exactly the same sociopolitical power as every other person; representatives and officials do not have additional power; that’s a property of a truly communist society. We don’t believe that can be done IRL.
Imagine a society in which everyone’s needs are met for an extreme body of needs (say as defined by the UN Universal Declaration of Human RIghts). The only transients that exist either are in a short line to be issued a dwelling, or don’t want one. Everyone is fed. Everyone has their own stuff. This isn’t impossible, but is difficult as heck to reach.
Communism is a goal that a society tries to reach similar to a zero homicide rate We don’t expect to get there, but we do want our society to ever get closer, as we discover new means to approach that limit.
We reach for the ideal of a communist society. We never expect to actually get there.
To be fair, a lot of communist revolution did result in mass starvation.
To be fair, fat cat capitalist hoarding wealth have caused exponentially more. Counted the homeless in your community lately. Year in, year out. They might be invisible to you … but they are there. Millions of them – year in, and year out. Starving. Homeless.
As a precursor, sure. The OG 1918 October Revolution was fueled by a string of famines, exacerbated by the World War.
The American Bonus Marchers of 1932 were also propelled by food shortages of The Dust Bowl.
But these events get vanishingly little coverage in western history textbooks
Which communist revolution? Russia was having famines before the soviet revolution. Its more reasonable to say communism solved the famines in russia and created them in china.
Eh the Soviets had plenty of their own man made famine (Holodomor, among others)
I wouldn’t associate that with a revolution though. Similar to how the “Irish potato famine” was something the brits did to Ireland that’s a thing the soviets did to their colonies, essentially and I would probably chalk it up to a type of colonialism
Lysenkoism was the cause of both Soviet and Chinese non-war related famines, a grand tragedy only possible under an authoritarian fever dream.
Ignore the lessons of history if you want, it just makes you the villain of the next cycle.
There was no one single cause, and trying to deflect blame onto a single (exceptionally whackdoodle) pseudoscientific theory is intellectually dishonest at best, and regular dishonest at worst.
Funny, because it and the pre-industrial cyclical famines ended when his policies did.
Man yeah, the fall of Lysenkoism is really the defining moment of mid-late 1940s soviet russia. Couldn’t possibly have been any other factors which played into the shift in cultural attitudes within the soviet union at that time. Nope, must have been down to Lysenkoism itself falling out of favor.
Also it ended in the 60s and the last big soviet famine was in 47s so idk about that timelineYes, eventually the industrialization of Soviet farming paid off despite his nonsense.
Doesn’t stop it from being the major cause (beyond deliberate genocidal policies) of the interwar famines. As you can provably see when it spread to Mao’s newly formed Chinese state and, surprise, caused famines again when they didn’t have the sheer output of an industrialized agrarianian sector to make up for it.
The Four Pests Campaign obviously didn’t help in that regard but Lysenkoism was part and parcel of it, with Mao officially adopting it as state policy and Lysenkoism trained advisors setting specific policy goals.
I don’t think I’ve ever up voted a comment of yours. But you are 100% on point about Lysenko. His promotion and the treatment of Vavilov are emblematic of a few of the many many flaws of Leninism. Vavilov was at least posthumously exonerated.Though he still died in a Siberian gulag for the crime of disagreeing with comrade Stalin, and sticking to the evidence.
You don’t see any state run bread lines do you?
That’s because they’d rather you starve, but the mafia has soup lines waiting for you.
You don’t see any state run bread lines do you?
I remember getting extremely screamed at on Reddit when I posted “Bread Lines” and the picture of a line around the block at a grocery store on the eve of a hurricane.
Apparently, that’s not a “real” bread line because idfk free markets or some shit.
You don’t see any state run bread lines do you?
You do, they’re called food pantry lines, and they tend to be run by churches in my experience
There are still plenty of local government run food pantries too, since I have to spell this part out in crayon for some people…
If the food pantries are run by churches, then they are not state run, meaning you do not see state run food pantries.
If the food pantries are run by churches, then they are not state run
What if the state is subsidizing the church through tax credits, grants, and subsidies?
The state has no control over the food at the pantries beyond basic health standards. The state cannot force me to give out bread when I run a soup kitchen. It can encourage me to continue with charitable acts with tax credits and subsidies, but it cannot force me to.
The state has no control over the food at the pantries beyond
My brother in Christ there is literally a department of agriculture at the federal level and every single state. To say the state has no control over food in pantries you have to ignore water rights and farm tax credits and crop subsidies and trade restrictions and registration in pesticides and that’s just on the production end.
I live in a city where people are routinely arrested for distributing food to the homeless.
The state clearly has enormous control over what gets produced, where it is distributed, and who eats it. Even what price its sold.
I’m not American, but my uneducated ass believes America is basically a theocracy. The president has to pretend that he does everything in the name of god, you have to swear your official vows on the bible, every hotel has a bible, every child in school has to pray to the god-emperor every morning, your money says “in god we trust”, your churches are payed for by tax-evasion.
So then, what renains to be the difference between “state run” and “church run” benefits really?
Well let’s break your points down.
1: The president does not need to pretend everything is done in the name of god. One party does this to appeal to a religious base.
2: You do not need to swear into office on a bible, many have sworn in on nothing at all or other holy books.
3: Every hotel is provided a bible (and often a book of mormon) by that company. This is because the company many of these hotels are owned by is a mormon company. Many hotels do not have bibles in them now.
4: Children are not required to pray in the morning, unless you attend a religious school specifically. If you mean the pledge, that is also optional and not done in many schools.
5: In God We Trust is an odd case yes. It was added in the 1950’s to “combat socialism.”
6: Churches are not required to pay taxes because they are also charities that perform good acts for the poor. Other religions claim this benefit as well.
Trump is a religion here. His devout call themselves christian but its clearly distinct in both beliefs and rituals.
-
Actually they all functionally do, just to varying extents. Good luck finding a President who has never mentioned God in any of their speeches.
-
Technically correct, but those who choose Not A Bible are routinely targetted with bigoted smear campaigns, often death threats, many of them credible, actionable.
-
I mean you just do admit that this happens, that’s how normalized religion is, the state doesn’t do anything and it just happens.
-
Clearly you have no idea how widespread and common it is for parents to force their kids to do this, for teachers in more religious states to force the pledge. Actual rules on the book be damned, don’t follow the unwritten ones and you are a pariah.
-
You again concede this is the case.
-
Churches can perform charitable acts, but there is no requirement for this, many of them don’t, many of them either directly or indirectly donate money to political think tank/campaigns and call that ‘charity’, many of them explicitly endorse particular political candidates, despite that being illegal, because either no one reports the violation and/or nobody bothers to prosecute it.
See also: The entire megachurch/megapastor phenomenon in the US, which would be described as a massive cult in basically any other country.
-
Because they are religious? You would be hard pressed to find politicians who do not appeal to a higher authority except in countries where religious freedoms are restricted.
-
Targeted by smear campaigns from their political opponents who would have smear campaigns running anyways. Credible death threats is a different story and not the norm, politicians recieve death threats from wackos over everything they do.
-
What would the state do? It’s a first amendment protected right. If you dislike this practice you can stay in hotels without bibles.
-
Anecdotal evidence at best, maybe in the more religious areas of the country in the south this happens, but they are a minority.
-
Good job realizing that.
-
Yes megachurches do provide some charity to maintain their tax exempt status. There is no defined percentage of revenue you must spend to be a charity. This is a larger issue that affects secular charities as well.
You have really only argued one of your six points.
You seem to arguing the US is not literally an official theocracy.
I am arguing that religiosity in the US is significantly more pervasive, common and extreme than in any other developed country, and I don’t even need to argue this, all kinds of stats have borne this out in detail, for decades.
Almost half of the US believes that we are all living in ‘the end times’, that the Rapture will either happen in their lifetimes, or even very, very soon.
Thats almost half the US that literally exists in an apocalyptic death cult.
They wouldn’t call it that, but that is literally what it is. Most other Christians in most other parts of the world do not believe in this essentially uniquely American fan fiction version of Christianity… and most Americans don’t even know that, that everyone else thinks we are weird.
Its a huge reason why we also statistically abberantly don’t believe climate change is real or is caused by humans or should have something done about it.
Its also a huge reason that US Evangelicals, up untill extremely recently… basically uniformly support anything Israel does.
They largely hate Jews, but, they literally want to hasten the apocalpyse, to hit all the conditions that they ‘interpreted’ into their scenario for the preamble to the Rapture.
Good luck getting an atheist elected president in the US.
-
-
I agree with everything you’re saying. But I just wanted to mention that politicians are not actually required to swear in on a Bible. That’s just what most use because of everything else you said. But every once in a while a politician will choose something different to swear on. Two I can remember of the to of my head was swearing in on Dr seues green eggs and ham and another one that swore in on a Captain America comic. Of course the religious nut jobs always lose it when that happens though
So then, what renains to be the difference between “state run” and “church run” benefits really?
What kind of question is that? Churches are funded through donations rather than through taxes and they have no legal obligation to perform charity, so the difference is that they are not as reliable for people in need.
TIL “tend to” means “always”
Even if they tend to be run by churches, then they wouldn’t count as state run. Meaning you do not see state-run bread lines / food pantries.
23 downvotes
People in the West absolutely can’t stand when you point out all the same instructions of poverty exist on their home turf.
It’s a sin to acknowledge poverty exists. Nevermind to suggest that westerners might be worse at alleviating it than their foreign peers.
The downvoted are cause they said “state run food pantries” and then talked about them being run by churches and not the state.
We fucking know there is poverty here. Hence talking about bread lines in the first place.
In the US? The church and the state are joined at the hip. Go look up the history of Mitt Romney. The man is an ordained Mormon Bishop while he lived in Boston.
We organize our charitable relief at the retail end through church fronts. But the money and the materials routinely come from state coffers.
In my country, one evil of communism I always heard was “not being able to buy Adidas shoes and Levis jeans”. But if capitalism makes it a de facto luxury product through devaluing your work, then it’s tough luck.
Two things can be true.
You know, some people get really worked up about how some sodas are really good and others are horrible. Healthwise they’re all really just sugar water with some flavor and color sprinkled on top.
The flavoring and coloring are the least nutritionally relevant parts of the beverages and yet are what everyone obsesses over when discussing which of them is best.
The flavor doesn’t change the nature of all the sugar, despite how different they feel to the palate.
A very costly lesson many maya people and other enemies of the aztec empire learnt after the spanish came to the americas was that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
A very costly lesson many maya people and other enemies of the aztec empire learnt after the spanish came to the americas was that the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.
See, I thought the lesson was more for the Aztecs. You can only commit so much human sacrifice before even a handful of foreigners with some novel propaganda can topple your empire from within.
Lots of lessons to go around everywhere if you look with thw right eyes.
Make it trend for a month.
@MTZ This bot has been asked to generate an alt text for your image by @brinazarski. If you consent, you will grant altbot a one-time permission to process this specific post. All processing is done privately with no third-parties. Any and all content is deleted after processing.
The full privacy policy: https://github.com/micr0-dev/Altbot/blob/main/PRIVACY.mdDo you consent? Reply with ‘Y’ or ‘Yes’ to proceed.
At this point, this joke is basically like kicking a dead horse.
Keep going an let’s make MAGA glue
Umazing
But it’s their fault for being poor. - Republicans
Also, in a famine, it is grossly unfair to put all blame on a single leader/government. In USSR’s case, during global famine, the US insisted debt be paid in food, and the government had to react to extortionist farmer class (Kulak) pricing. It is entirely political to create narrative of opponents fault for everything, when they are faced with hard decisions that your country imposed on them.
In this case, it is especially eggregious to not only force starvation by executive decision in times of relative abundance, but to further provide IRS directives that would collect less (minimum corporate tax rules) from oligarchs, so that budget/revenue is further reduced, and excuse to continue starving people becomes a manufactured crisis.
USSR leadership absolutely used forced requisition (sometimes leaving nothing to the farmers) as a tool of power and control and to punish the farmers. The leadership in USSR was pretty vitriolic towards the agrarian population and treated them like shit at least until later in the Union’s life.
AFAIU, there were 2 farmer classes in USSR at the time. Collectives getting fixed price for their crops, and Kulak private farmers getting market prices. Famine makes those prices extortionist, and USSR chose to fight extortion.
I cannot find a single source about US insisting debt payments be made in food. Most of the kulaks were also imprisoned or deported in the late 1920’s during collectivization. The USSR in the early years had targeted food shortages in Ukraine and the Caucuses to starve the population into submission. There was later a union wide food shortage because Stalin increased the export of wheat without adequately increasing production.
The wikipedia article (holomodor), unless it’s been nazi washed recently, has/had all the points I made even if it’s balanced to “always hate Stalin”. I don’t know what caused Stalin to not repay US debt (explains food exports), but that too would have led to complaints about his handling of famine. Holomodor is a Ukrainian word, and its enthusiastic eastern cooperation with nazi Germany, including administrating extermination camps, colours its history/politics to this day. Still, they had fewer famine deaths than other parts of the USSR.
Recently, famine/drought in Syria was a great opportunity for the empire and its Al Quaeda and ISIS proxies to rise up and eventually overthrow the long time leader. It is not in demonic evil scum’s nature to assist people’s survival through cooperation with their government, if a narrative gives them more control over the world.
Also Stalin’s promotion of Trofim Lysenko and his crackpot ideas on agriculture that mirrored the crackpot ideas of Leninism. Exacerbating famines and helping to kill millions.
A greedy sociopathic leader with lack of empathy will always cause starvation, be it capitalism or communism or any other system anywhere. Shitty kings, dictators, and colonialists have always caused this since the beginning of time. It ain’t about the system.
The trick is to lock in a sustainable situation where power is spread out more than it is centralized. Democratic republics achieve this but, if your goal is simple “efficiency” (e.g. your personal political faction not restrained by rule of law) and you ignore the benefits of freedom of expression and movement that democracy gives you, then centralized autocratic control is tempting.
Defensive Democracy, but with added Socialism entrenched into the constitution.
Yes, idea is to spread power and not allow greed to take over. A Democratic Republic, i.e. a representative democracy is a good start but not good enough - we already have that in America & most countries worldwide, but that didn’t do much. What we need is widespread democratic socialism, i.e. market socialism i.e. co-ops, credit unions, open source etc.
lmao please make this the new meme format
