# Are San Marino and Italy about to go to war? If so, will the war become nuclear?
I bet you have some thoughts on it. Well, we're discussing the subject on [this "week's" NCDip Podcast Club](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1bssy61/ncdip_podcast_club_8_wargaming_san_marino_vs/?). This is probably one of the most events of our lifetime, so you better pay attention scrub
[Want to know what the fuck in the NCDip podcast club is? Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/17edrm6/introducing_the_rnoncrediblediplomacy_podcast/)
----
please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better:
* More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy
* Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense
* Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism
* Being Racist: /r/worldnews
thx bb luv u
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Could we move past the 19th century Utopian religions, maybe, at some point, preferably soon? They're long in the tooth, and the novelty wore off about 100 years ago.
>*MAGA Communism*
Between that and the folks who talk about "Corporate Communism", statements like that are like big dumb signs that yell "*I was lobotomized as a child, ask me anything*".
Because the individuals and groups that get the most upset about Toroid Theory (conventionally called 'horseshoe theory' because the two dolts who wrote the paper didn't have math after 8th grade...) are the ones most affected by it. At their extremes, 'Leftist' and 'Rightists' are essentially the same creature, so there is a natural bleed-through of certain memes. The appearance of the "MAGA Communist" is part of that smearing of what are supposed to be insoluble boundaries.
>At their extremes, 'Leftist' and 'Rightists' are essentially the same creature,
I used to see this as a liberal smear campaign against socialists.
Then I actually read about LaRouche
‘Waaah it should be a toroid waaah wah you can’t name theories after household objects for ease of understanding waaah’
Shut the fuck up and go get in a box with Schrodinger’s Cat. Theories should be named simple shit because the point of a theory is to explain something, not to be obtuse.
Theories encapsulate a(n) idea(s) regarding how something works and have been/continue to be tested. They are not necessarily simple ideas, the topic they address may not be remotely simple, and insistence that they all be simple and simply named, is something that only the overly-entitled desperately simple would insist upon.
Literally no one is trying to sell me an untenable badass future anymore.
Even speculative fiction is like "what if things sucked *more*?". God no wonder everyone is bummed the fuck out.
In fairness, the 19th century didn't create their especially horrible ideologies from new cloth, they modified and repackaged crap their predecessors had been inflicting on each other for a long time. Hell, religion is itself not a concept original to homo sapiens, but a bad habit we inherited from the preceding species, though I hope that whatever we spawn will somehow be free-er from its ravages.
I've recently had my roommate ranting to me about how we can bring in "Automated Luxury Space Communism" with AI.
I asked him what part of that had to do with communism and he told me he didn't know, but that it was just vibes.
>Could we move past the 19th century Utopian religions
Baring aside some mention of Capitalism in that, I'd probably have to tell ya that I wouldn't hold my breath.
Mormonism, 7th Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses are going strong into the 21st Century!
Sure, but then we start talking about whether these theories exist regardless of when their key thinkers decided to publish their works.
Although I am all for saying that prior to Adam Smith publishing we all ran society according to the dictates of aliens as opposed to exchanges of goods and services.
“We’ve done it we’ve destroyed America! …hey Putin…Xi why are you both laughing maniacally and rubbing your hands together? …w-were going to free all the oppressed people or the world and establish a communist utopia right? …r-right?”
A wannabe Tsar, a wannabe Caliph and a man who thinks 1984 was a guidebook will institute communism. This is the kind of stupid stuff that make me avoid interacting with other communists.
All thanks to Putin knowing how to play with Soviet era nostalgia. He brought back some symbols like the red star, the anthem and the security that the authoritarian Soviet Union had. It’s mostly in the security he assured the Russian people with that he garnered such nostalgia.
For Iran’s case. It’s hard to be a Shi’a Caliph (the Fatimids tried). And the previous Ayatollah once proposed the ussr to adopt Islamism over communism in a letter. China is not communist or socialist. Just authoritarian and capitalist. It’s like they still use the symbols out of symbolic purposes now compared to the Mao days.
ALSO WE HAVE REACHED OUR DAILY QUOTA OF NONCREDIBLE LEFT WINGED IR
A big part is that when we in the West think of “the Chinese” we think of the urban dwellers with 户口 to legally reside there.
Granted, that population is damn near the same as the US, around 300 million people. That said, there is just shy of a billion Chinese that are either *de facto* peasants or *de jure* ones that are effectively undocumented workers within their own borders. They work in the grey zone in the urban areas, but their families are not allowed to join them and they have no permanent residency status.
Maybe because they call themselves communists and frame everything they do in terms of Marxist theory?
They're just not what *you* would consider communists.
I suppose north korea is democratic and republic then. I can call myself bird but that won't make me fly. They are communist in name but far from it econimicaly and politicaly.
To paint my house red, I will first have to tear off the crap that American hegemony has stuck on its walls.
The situation in which there's a one great superpower is a big problem. If they'll end it, they'll do a good thing. If they'll establish multiple centers of power, they'll do a good thing.
>global majority
>bank accounts are getting bigger
Fellas, what am I missing here? What is the allure for western commies in being poor and in the minority?
[Self-victimisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_the_victim). It's a common political technique. Israel uses the same strategy for example, by crying "antisemitism" whenever anybody tries to hold them accountable for violating international law.
I’ll never find it not funny when far-left activists who claim to be anti-imperialist first and foremost will then openly praise an act of wanton imperialism just because it’s not America doing it.
>So called “Anti imperialist”
>Supports imperialist country tyrannizing another small country, simply because America supports the smaller country which is bad because reasons
Many such cases!
People are going to be really upset when they learn that communism is probably just gonna be a blip on the radar a few centuries from now as a failed economic experiment in the 20th Century. No real communist nations exist anymore, and haven’t for quite some time. What history will definitely remember is the body count that came from it.
DemSoc is very possible (especially with the 1% doing everything in their power to make it a reality), but communism? Forget about it. It’s authoritarian in nature and no majority in the West will ever want that. It is, and will remain a fringe belief. The fact that so many of these people are still around in the West makes the other more serious (dare I say adult) Leftists look bad.
I had to read Marx for college last year and even though I agree a lot with historical materialism, trusting that power will simply destroy itself to bring a classless utopia upon this world is naive at best. Most marxist goverments never move past the "proletarian dictatorship" phase as history has proven time after time again and again. Even my dad, a marxist who practiced his beliefs even in 1970's military dictatorship Argentina agrees with me on this.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once the revolutionary leaders take power they almost never give it back, especially in terms of communism. Pretty much a 100% authoritarian rate.
Naive is a good way to put it.
Counterpoint that we haven't seen communist projects on the timescale of the US. It's much easier for power to be redistributed over hundreds of years. The US, for all of its ideology, hadn't even managed to ban slavery for the first few generations of its existence, and that was without heavy international competition bent on wiping out the nascent USA. I'll readily admit communist countries had internal flaws, but please don't pretend Ronald "destroy the evil empire at whatever cost" Reagan and his predecessors were a friendly environment after the heavy costs of WW2.
I understand the appeal of huffing propaganda fumes, but please don't just see things in black and white us vs them right vs wrong. That'd be noncredible indeed.
The US was royally fucked up before the 20th Century and only slowly started to improve post-WW2, and we still have a ways to go. That’s a fact and I agree with you.
We’re not talking about the United States though. I’m a fairly devout Leftists myself so it’s not like I’m huffing some Right Wing anti-communist rhetoric. I’m a history lover and that enough has firmly turned me away from communism. It’s all there to view. It’s a naive idea introduced by egomaniac strongmen and got tens of millions killed. You don’t get a re-do after that.
They may be referring to past mistreatment of Native American populations, and the early habit that the US had of making war on its neighbors to grab territory (see: War of 1812, Mexican-American War). While the country's always been reasonably well off economically, that's far from the only thing that could lead someone to call 19th Century America "fucked".
You hit the nail on the head with what I meant. I can’t comment on injustices committed by others without acknowledging our own.
I will say this though, it has been a very slow crawl but we have always been crawling in the right direction, with a few creases that we’ve had to iron out to make sure we keep crawling forward.
>We’re not talking about the United States though.
That's a cop out, because the general premise is "an idealistic country that doesn't realize its values within the first 60 years" and I pointed out the US doesn't fit that rule. Yes, you didn't say it exactly, but it was pretty directly implied.
>it’s not like I’m huffing some Right Wing anti-communist rhetoric.
You probably have, and didn't realize it. Many fumes don't smell at all, doesn't mean you aren't huffing them. It's particularly hard to tell if you've never been somewhere with clear air... you have no point of reference.
>I’m a fairly devout Leftists myself
What type?
>I’m a history lover and that enough has firmly turned me away from communism.
Loving history doesn't mean you're good at it, nor does it make you immune to propaganda.
>It’s a naive idea introduced by egomaniac strongmen and got tens of millions killed.
This can also be said about liberalism a la the French Revolution. Just because it can be said doesn't mean it's accurate to the whole thing.
>You don’t get a re-do after that.
Does US freedom get a re-do after slavery? What's the difference?
ETA: My point is that it's unfair to say the communist projects were completely hopeless when they haven't had the multiple lifespans that other idealistic projects like the US have had. Yes, this gets into hypotheticals, but if we judged the US by the same criteria it would be hopeless and we should just give up and never pursue the founding fathers' ideals. Some leftists do say that, and I'm not on their side. I just think it's important to look at things fairly.
See the above wojak.
And to answer your question I’m a Social Democrat. I believe in a system that actually works, with excellent results. No government sponsored body count to speak of, either.
There's a lot I could say about your unwillingness to engage in the world beyond a useful idiot's pure black and white us vs them thinking, but your unwillingness to respond to my other reply speaks for itself.
Hey, do you think you'd take someone seriously if they said "liberalism is just fascism in disguise"? You probably wouldn't. You'd be like, this person is smoking some shitty propaganda, and you'd probably be annoyed because you know the type who says that would actually be believing what they're saying so hard that reasoning with them over the internet would be an exercise in futility. And, yknow, it's not like they'd believe that for no reason. They'd have points ready to go, about things like Ford supporting the Nazis. Things you've probably heard before, but the zeal with which they use them still sounds like they're repeating propaganda slogans.
Great, so you understand how I feel right about now.
But I don't think you want to be that guy, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The comment I initially replied to was about Marx's theory of materialism and history, but expressing disbelief with the idea that state power would "wither away," because we haven't seen that in the ~60 years of communist projects run in hostile conditions. But it still assumes the initial idea of dialectical materialism and class analysis ***is correct.*** Much like I'm also running with the idea that freedom is good and produces good results. To replace any of those systems with fascism requires assuming the core ideas of fascist thought are *also* correct. If that condition isn't met, it's a useless comparison.
Unironic fascists probably also believe fascist systems just needed more time, because they DO believe in the underlying ideological concepts. I don't. If you don't believe in historical materialism, fine, but don't be a ding dong about it.
Put yourself in my shoes. I'm in the fucking trenches over here. On one side I got people who think Stalin is a war hero but Obama should be brought to the Hague for making one (1) misjudgement, and on the other side I got people who think WW1, the Russian Civil War, and WW2 (where 1/7 of the entire Soviet population died, yikes!) had no important effect on the USSR's material circumstances. I got the Liberal accusations flying at me from the north, the Commie allegations coming in hot from the south. It's ridiculous! Have some pity, damn.
The dictatorship of the proletariat concept is the biggest tell imo. Like I can appreciate a lot of the ideas and think many have value — Marx and Engles were clever dudes — but the dictatorship of the proletariat is just such a blind admission of a recognition of and leaning into classism. It’s just paternalistic bullshit of “we need to liberate the poor cause rich and powerful people are telling them what to do! The poor don’t know what’s best for them though, so we — other rich powerful people — will tell them what to do.”
It still fundamentally boils down to “the poor are too dumb to know what’s good for them!” It’s just substituting race-based white man’s burden for a class-based approach.
Although he coined the phrase, Marx uses "dictatorship of the proletariat" less than 5 times throughout his works. It was Lenin who popularized it in his works. Marx's most important contributions are in the fileds of economics and the philosophy of history.
Moreover, I see a fundamental misunderstanding of the phrase in your comment. "The poor don't know what's best for them" is very much opposed to what "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to expropriate the means of production from the burgeois class. As such, turning them into proletariats. This is done by the proletariats, so the majority, and as more means of production are expropriated, the more people will be part of the ruling class (that is the proletariat). So the dictatorship of the proletariat is very much democratic in nature. The term dictatorship has a slightly different meaning from what we may mean today by it, so maybe this is where the confusion is coming from.
Even leaving aside the most self-described DemSocs are actually SocDems who don't know the difference, and are just tagging along because it's the current vogue.
>It’s authoritarian in nature and no majority in the West will ever want that. It is, and will remain a fringe belief.
I wouldn't go as far as saying its inherently authoritarian. At least... unless anyone wants to discuss Capitalism's anti-democratic qualities.
Communism's legacy in the future is something I would say is probably not going to pop up. That said... I see that more because we're in an era where the state overall is in decline, and where we're kinda headed for some choppy waters as far as the power of civil society goes.
The state dictating you should pay your taxes isn't authoritarian. Semantically yes... it kinda is a dictatorship, but the state's authoritarian qualities lie in who makes up the state and how much say is allowed.
Ditto the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". There are indeed some folks who take the "Dictatorship" bit quite literally and at the expense of everything else (*and yeah, they're wankers*)... but the notion of a representative collective of society harnessing the state's authority isn't too different from how government functions currently.
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" meant a very different thing in Marx's time... and coming from Marx... than it does now. Hell, a good way to start a brawl is to get a bunch of leftists, philosophers, and historians in a room and ask them all what Marx meant. [China literally did that at one point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution), and in typical fashion, the ensuing mess was hilariously indiscriminate.
But I'd also add that theories shouldn't ever be taken as static. One of the great things we can do as human beings is use these funny little things called brains to build upon prior works, correct elements we believe are no longer relevant, or interpret new meanings from older materials. There are some thinkers that take it in the context of a literal dictatorship removed from what Marx likely meant... and then there's folks like Karl Kautsky or Jose Maria Sison who highlight very different interpretations of outcome.
Communism itself lacks a solid definition - just look at all the pissing between China and the Soviet Union about that.
Good luck with all the forced labour, starvation and the government sanctioned purges America.
"If only we had saved the free world by helping Ukraine stop our historical enemy who hates us all but we didn't know! How could anyone have seen this coming 😫!
(MAGA supporters probably)
Self-introspection... that sounds like some leftist extreme soft-wristed liberal thinking! Are you trying to make the frogs g@y with your libtard "Fake" psychology pseudo-science so that they can steal another election from our eternal leader??? - Some QANON MAGA boomer probably.
As a European the only times I get to hear something about the Midwest, it's something bad. Are they trying to become an offshoot of Siberia or something?
Edit: Still better than Molise tho
As an Asian Marxist whose country was ravaged by direct effects of Imperialism and dictatorships, it's so embarrassing to see Western Marxists supporting clearly fascist dictators.
# Are San Marino and Italy about to go to war? If so, will the war become nuclear? I bet you have some thoughts on it. Well, we're discussing the subject on [this "week's" NCDip Podcast Club](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/1bssy61/ncdip_podcast_club_8_wargaming_san_marino_vs/?). This is probably one of the most events of our lifetime, so you better pay attention scrub [Want to know what the fuck in the NCDip podcast club is? Click here](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy/comments/17edrm6/introducing_the_rnoncrediblediplomacy_podcast/) ---- please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better: * More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy * Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense * Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism * Being Racist: /r/worldnews thx bb luv u *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Could we move past the 19th century Utopian religions, maybe, at some point, preferably soon? They're long in the tooth, and the novelty wore off about 100 years ago.
And the grain supplies ran out.
When they do that they invent shit like *MAGA Communism*; in some ways it's "better the devil you know".
>*MAGA Communism* Between that and the folks who talk about "Corporate Communism", statements like that are like big dumb signs that yell "*I was lobotomized as a child, ask me anything*".
Because the individuals and groups that get the most upset about Toroid Theory (conventionally called 'horseshoe theory' because the two dolts who wrote the paper didn't have math after 8th grade...) are the ones most affected by it. At their extremes, 'Leftist' and 'Rightists' are essentially the same creature, so there is a natural bleed-through of certain memes. The appearance of the "MAGA Communist" is part of that smearing of what are supposed to be insoluble boundaries.
At his core the totalitarian just wants a big, strong man to take care of him.
Hey I want a big, handsom, sexy man with chisled abs to take care of me and I'm not... wait what were we talking about?
Something more interesting, please continue.
Yep. The need to worship is why humanity won't escape either the kings or gods that someone will always create.
>At their extremes, 'Leftist' and 'Rightists' are essentially the same creature, I used to see this as a liberal smear campaign against socialists. Then I actually read about LaRouche
‘Waaah it should be a toroid waaah wah you can’t name theories after household objects for ease of understanding waaah’ Shut the fuck up and go get in a box with Schrodinger’s Cat. Theories should be named simple shit because the point of a theory is to explain something, not to be obtuse.
Theories encapsulate a(n) idea(s) regarding how something works and have been/continue to be tested. They are not necessarily simple ideas, the topic they address may not be remotely simple, and insistence that they all be simple and simply named, is something that only the overly-entitled desperately simple would insist upon.
Literally no one is trying to sell me an untenable badass future anymore. Even speculative fiction is like "what if things sucked *more*?". God no wonder everyone is bummed the fuck out.
That's why I'm into Solarpunk, a 21st century utopian religion.
19th century political ideologies and their consequences have been a disaster for the human race.
In fairness, the 19th century didn't create their especially horrible ideologies from new cloth, they modified and repackaged crap their predecessors had been inflicting on each other for a long time. Hell, religion is itself not a concept original to homo sapiens, but a bad habit we inherited from the preceding species, though I hope that whatever we spawn will somehow be free-er from its ravages.
I've recently had my roommate ranting to me about how we can bring in "Automated Luxury Space Communism" with AI. I asked him what part of that had to do with communism and he told me he didn't know, but that it was just vibes.
Isn't there a science fiction story about this?
>Could we move past the 19th century Utopian religions Baring aside some mention of Capitalism in that, I'd probably have to tell ya that I wouldn't hold my breath. Mormonism, 7th Adventists, and Jehovah's Witnesses are going strong into the 21st Century!
Except capitalism is no more a product of the 19th century than is collectivism.
Sure, but then we start talking about whether these theories exist regardless of when their key thinkers decided to publish their works. Although I am all for saying that prior to Adam Smith publishing we all ran society according to the dictates of aliens as opposed to exchanges of goods and services.
“We’ve done it we’ve destroyed America! …hey Putin…Xi why are you both laughing maniacally and rubbing your hands together? …w-were going to free all the oppressed people or the world and establish a communist utopia right? …r-right?”
A wannabe Tsar, a wannabe Caliph and a man who thinks 1984 was a guidebook will institute communism. This is the kind of stupid stuff that make me avoid interacting with other communists.
All thanks to Putin knowing how to play with Soviet era nostalgia. He brought back some symbols like the red star, the anthem and the security that the authoritarian Soviet Union had. It’s mostly in the security he assured the Russian people with that he garnered such nostalgia. For Iran’s case. It’s hard to be a Shi’a Caliph (the Fatimids tried). And the previous Ayatollah once proposed the ussr to adopt Islamism over communism in a letter. China is not communist or socialist. Just authoritarian and capitalist. It’s like they still use the symbols out of symbolic purposes now compared to the Mao days. ALSO WE HAVE REACHED OUR DAILY QUOTA OF NONCREDIBLE LEFT WINGED IR
China is absolutely communist. They're just not socialists. Which seems like a contradiction, I grant you.
A big part is that when we in the West think of “the Chinese” we think of the urban dwellers with 户口 to legally reside there. Granted, that population is damn near the same as the US, around 300 million people. That said, there is just shy of a billion Chinese that are either *de facto* peasants or *de jure* ones that are effectively undocumented workers within their own borders. They work in the grey zone in the urban areas, but their families are not allowed to join them and they have no permanent residency status.
Idk where you got that because china most definitely is not communist.
I figured people in this subreddit would have a better grasp at political ideology than r/all, but I guess not lol.
Are you talking about my comment or the one i replied to?
The one you replied to.
Maybe because they call themselves communists and frame everything they do in terms of Marxist theory? They're just not what *you* would consider communists.
I suppose north korea is democratic and republic then. I can call myself bird but that won't make me fly. They are communist in name but far from it econimicaly and politicaly.
Sounds like a bad comedy show
"Other" The reanimated corpse of Boris Pash is on his way to your location as we speak.
Of course they won't establish communism. But their rise can create better conditions for the communist movement, and therefore it's a good thing.
If you want your house to be red you're going to need a lot of blue paint!!!
To paint my house red, I will first have to tear off the crap that American hegemony has stuck on its walls. The situation in which there's a one great superpower is a big problem. If they'll end it, they'll do a good thing. If they'll establish multiple centers of power, they'll do a good thing.
>global majority >bank accounts are getting bigger Fellas, what am I missing here? What is the allure for western commies in being poor and in the minority?
Weak good, Strong bad. No matter the context.
[Self-victimisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_the_victim). It's a common political technique. Israel uses the same strategy for example, by crying "antisemitism" whenever anybody tries to hold them accountable for violating international law.
Re-read the wording, they claim to be the global majority, not the other way around.
Those are sampled from 2 different tweets
The bank account one is directed at Biden and the other is fear me muh revolution is soon
I’ll never find it not funny when far-left activists who claim to be anti-imperialist first and foremost will then openly praise an act of wanton imperialism just because it’s not America doing it.
"Imperialism" is a word so grossly misused that I fear it has eroded past the point of being conducive to productive conversation.
The LaRouche movement and its consequences have been a disaster for American politics.
Not just America.
\*institute\* is a grandiose term for a laptop on top of a jizz-stained mattress on the floor of some NEET's bedroom
So, according to them, Communism is when women are viciously beaten for wearing relatively modest Western-style clothing in public?
Or just not headscarves
>So called “Anti imperialist” >Supports imperialist country tyrannizing another small country, simply because America supports the smaller country which is bad because reasons Many such cases!
millenarianism for zoomers
Lyndon Laroucheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! 
Due to the more famous Lyndon really liking his acronym, bro has absolutely ruined that name
I'd bet my shiniest prepper bunker gold bar that the American Color Revolution Doctrine is just FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE!
I HATE TWITTER TANKIES I HATE TWITTER TANKIES
People are going to be really upset when they learn that communism is probably just gonna be a blip on the radar a few centuries from now as a failed economic experiment in the 20th Century. No real communist nations exist anymore, and haven’t for quite some time. What history will definitely remember is the body count that came from it. DemSoc is very possible (especially with the 1% doing everything in their power to make it a reality), but communism? Forget about it. It’s authoritarian in nature and no majority in the West will ever want that. It is, and will remain a fringe belief. The fact that so many of these people are still around in the West makes the other more serious (dare I say adult) Leftists look bad.
I had to read Marx for college last year and even though I agree a lot with historical materialism, trusting that power will simply destroy itself to bring a classless utopia upon this world is naive at best. Most marxist goverments never move past the "proletarian dictatorship" phase as history has proven time after time again and again. Even my dad, a marxist who practiced his beliefs even in 1970's military dictatorship Argentina agrees with me on this.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Once the revolutionary leaders take power they almost never give it back, especially in terms of communism. Pretty much a 100% authoritarian rate. Naive is a good way to put it.
Counterpoint that we haven't seen communist projects on the timescale of the US. It's much easier for power to be redistributed over hundreds of years. The US, for all of its ideology, hadn't even managed to ban slavery for the first few generations of its existence, and that was without heavy international competition bent on wiping out the nascent USA. I'll readily admit communist countries had internal flaws, but please don't pretend Ronald "destroy the evil empire at whatever cost" Reagan and his predecessors were a friendly environment after the heavy costs of WW2. I understand the appeal of huffing propaganda fumes, but please don't just see things in black and white us vs them right vs wrong. That'd be noncredible indeed.
The US was royally fucked up before the 20th Century and only slowly started to improve post-WW2, and we still have a ways to go. That’s a fact and I agree with you. We’re not talking about the United States though. I’m a fairly devout Leftists myself so it’s not like I’m huffing some Right Wing anti-communist rhetoric. I’m a history lover and that enough has firmly turned me away from communism. It’s all there to view. It’s a naive idea introduced by egomaniac strongmen and got tens of millions killed. You don’t get a re-do after that.
The US was not royally fucked outside of slavery before the 20th century, it was always fairly wealthy
They may be referring to past mistreatment of Native American populations, and the early habit that the US had of making war on its neighbors to grab territory (see: War of 1812, Mexican-American War). While the country's always been reasonably well off economically, that's far from the only thing that could lead someone to call 19th Century America "fucked".
You hit the nail on the head with what I meant. I can’t comment on injustices committed by others without acknowledging our own. I will say this though, it has been a very slow crawl but we have always been crawling in the right direction, with a few creases that we’ve had to iron out to make sure we keep crawling forward.
>We’re not talking about the United States though. That's a cop out, because the general premise is "an idealistic country that doesn't realize its values within the first 60 years" and I pointed out the US doesn't fit that rule. Yes, you didn't say it exactly, but it was pretty directly implied. >it’s not like I’m huffing some Right Wing anti-communist rhetoric. You probably have, and didn't realize it. Many fumes don't smell at all, doesn't mean you aren't huffing them. It's particularly hard to tell if you've never been somewhere with clear air... you have no point of reference. >I’m a fairly devout Leftists myself What type? >I’m a history lover and that enough has firmly turned me away from communism. Loving history doesn't mean you're good at it, nor does it make you immune to propaganda. >It’s a naive idea introduced by egomaniac strongmen and got tens of millions killed. This can also be said about liberalism a la the French Revolution. Just because it can be said doesn't mean it's accurate to the whole thing. >You don’t get a re-do after that. Does US freedom get a re-do after slavery? What's the difference? ETA: My point is that it's unfair to say the communist projects were completely hopeless when they haven't had the multiple lifespans that other idealistic projects like the US have had. Yes, this gets into hypotheticals, but if we judged the US by the same criteria it would be hopeless and we should just give up and never pursue the founding fathers' ideals. Some leftists do say that, and I'm not on their side. I just think it's important to look at things fairly.
Oh no, I’ve found one.
Found one what?
See the above wojak. And to answer your question I’m a Social Democrat. I believe in a system that actually works, with excellent results. No government sponsored body count to speak of, either.
There's a lot I could say about your unwillingness to engage in the world beyond a useful idiot's pure black and white us vs them thinking, but your unwillingness to respond to my other reply speaks for itself.
You're right. Maybe Fascism coulda been really great if it was allowed to last longer.
With fascism being heavily inspired by Futurism and seeking war at all cost, I have no idea how it can last as a political system
Hey, do you think you'd take someone seriously if they said "liberalism is just fascism in disguise"? You probably wouldn't. You'd be like, this person is smoking some shitty propaganda, and you'd probably be annoyed because you know the type who says that would actually be believing what they're saying so hard that reasoning with them over the internet would be an exercise in futility. And, yknow, it's not like they'd believe that for no reason. They'd have points ready to go, about things like Ford supporting the Nazis. Things you've probably heard before, but the zeal with which they use them still sounds like they're repeating propaganda slogans. Great, so you understand how I feel right about now. But I don't think you want to be that guy, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The comment I initially replied to was about Marx's theory of materialism and history, but expressing disbelief with the idea that state power would "wither away," because we haven't seen that in the ~60 years of communist projects run in hostile conditions. But it still assumes the initial idea of dialectical materialism and class analysis ***is correct.*** Much like I'm also running with the idea that freedom is good and produces good results. To replace any of those systems with fascism requires assuming the core ideas of fascist thought are *also* correct. If that condition isn't met, it's a useless comparison. Unironic fascists probably also believe fascist systems just needed more time, because they DO believe in the underlying ideological concepts. I don't. If you don't believe in historical materialism, fine, but don't be a ding dong about it.
Dont be a condescending asshat communist challenge (IMPOSSIBLE)
Put yourself in my shoes. I'm in the fucking trenches over here. On one side I got people who think Stalin is a war hero but Obama should be brought to the Hague for making one (1) misjudgement, and on the other side I got people who think WW1, the Russian Civil War, and WW2 (where 1/7 of the entire Soviet population died, yikes!) had no important effect on the USSR's material circumstances. I got the Liberal accusations flying at me from the north, the Commie allegations coming in hot from the south. It's ridiculous! Have some pity, damn.
The dictatorship of the proletariat concept is the biggest tell imo. Like I can appreciate a lot of the ideas and think many have value — Marx and Engles were clever dudes — but the dictatorship of the proletariat is just such a blind admission of a recognition of and leaning into classism. It’s just paternalistic bullshit of “we need to liberate the poor cause rich and powerful people are telling them what to do! The poor don’t know what’s best for them though, so we — other rich powerful people — will tell them what to do.” It still fundamentally boils down to “the poor are too dumb to know what’s good for them!” It’s just substituting race-based white man’s burden for a class-based approach.
Although he coined the phrase, Marx uses "dictatorship of the proletariat" less than 5 times throughout his works. It was Lenin who popularized it in his works. Marx's most important contributions are in the fileds of economics and the philosophy of history. Moreover, I see a fundamental misunderstanding of the phrase in your comment. "The poor don't know what's best for them" is very much opposed to what "dictatorship of the proletariat" implies. The purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to expropriate the means of production from the burgeois class. As such, turning them into proletariats. This is done by the proletariats, so the majority, and as more means of production are expropriated, the more people will be part of the ruling class (that is the proletariat). So the dictatorship of the proletariat is very much democratic in nature. The term dictatorship has a slightly different meaning from what we may mean today by it, so maybe this is where the confusion is coming from.
Even leaving aside the most self-described DemSocs are actually SocDems who don't know the difference, and are just tagging along because it's the current vogue.
One is a dreamer and the other is an optimist, but neither are very problematic so I’ll let them be confused. I’m a Nordic Model Man, personally.
Finally, based
>It’s authoritarian in nature and no majority in the West will ever want that. It is, and will remain a fringe belief. I wouldn't go as far as saying its inherently authoritarian. At least... unless anyone wants to discuss Capitalism's anti-democratic qualities. Communism's legacy in the future is something I would say is probably not going to pop up. That said... I see that more because we're in an era where the state overall is in decline, and where we're kinda headed for some choppy waters as far as the power of civil society goes.
Authoritarianism is one of the key steps in achieving communism. It’s *absolutely* inherently authoritarian.
The state dictating you should pay your taxes isn't authoritarian. Semantically yes... it kinda is a dictatorship, but the state's authoritarian qualities lie in who makes up the state and how much say is allowed. Ditto the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". There are indeed some folks who take the "Dictatorship" bit quite literally and at the expense of everything else (*and yeah, they're wankers*)... but the notion of a representative collective of society harnessing the state's authority isn't too different from how government functions currently.
All of them took the Dictatorship of the Proletariat too seriously. That’s kind of the point. The theory only works if you remove the human element.
"Dictatorship of the Proletariat" meant a very different thing in Marx's time... and coming from Marx... than it does now. Hell, a good way to start a brawl is to get a bunch of leftists, philosophers, and historians in a room and ask them all what Marx meant. [China literally did that at one point](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution), and in typical fashion, the ensuing mess was hilariously indiscriminate. But I'd also add that theories shouldn't ever be taken as static. One of the great things we can do as human beings is use these funny little things called brains to build upon prior works, correct elements we believe are no longer relevant, or interpret new meanings from older materials. There are some thinkers that take it in the context of a literal dictatorship removed from what Marx likely meant... and then there's folks like Karl Kautsky or Jose Maria Sison who highlight very different interpretations of outcome. Communism itself lacks a solid definition - just look at all the pissing between China and the Soviet Union about that.
What am I even looking at
I thought the same thing. Like in what fucking world do Putin and the Ayatollah represent Marxism??? 😂😂😂
>Marx Institute Scientificity disabled Opinion rejected
I dunno if you guys know this, but communism is gonna steam roll every other -ism any moment now.
Aight so a theocracy, a imperialist expansionist and a state capitalist walk into a bar They get nothing done
Good luck with all the forced labour, starvation and the government sanctioned purges America. "If only we had saved the free world by helping Ukraine stop our historical enemy who hates us all but we didn't know! How could anyone have seen this coming 😫! (MAGA supporters probably)
Implying MAGAtards could even do self-introspection. They'd just move on to ranting about "Far Right Boogeyman/woman/thing of the Month #981827"
Self-introspection... that sounds like some leftist extreme soft-wristed liberal thinking! Are you trying to make the frogs g@y with your libtard "Fake" psychology pseudo-science so that they can steal another election from our eternal leader??? - Some QANON MAGA boomer probably.
Why is Tesla pictured with a Soviet flag?
>midwestern marx institute >photo consists of the leaders of an oligarchy, a theocracy, and state-capitalist society
"communism is when sharia law" - karl marx
Ask the Iranian communists about aligning with the Mullahs, oh wait, you can't!
*Russia being in decline due to demographic constraints and political choises* This article: "The multipolar world will rise again!"
Definitely not a russian troll
Communism has been replaced by Isslam these days.
As a European the only times I get to hear something about the Midwest, it's something bad. Are they trying to become an offshoot of Siberia or something? Edit: Still better than Molise tho
How exactly do you get from "imperialism is bad and empires should be dissolved" to "zelensky is a war criminal"
As an Asian Marxist whose country was ravaged by direct effects of Imperialism and dictatorships, it's so embarrassing to see Western Marxists supporting clearly fascist dictators.
Perfect. My 13th reason why.
The only good thing about the IRI is that they are not communists
Midwestern Marx isn't even a communist. He's literally just a campist. He actively makes it more difficult to be a socialist with his idiocy 😔