Capitalists industrialized Marxist Leninist also industrialized. At least compare something more apples to apples.
Life expectancy going up is always a good thing however. Now if only the Marxist leninist governments worked on their tolerance of speech. And the capitalist governments stop looking to the Marxist leninist governments for inspiration on how to crack down on speech.
That’s not a valid comparison. First there is the troublesome issue of sample size. Second there’s the issue of whats actually qualifies as communism or capitalism.
There has NEVER been a communist country. So that right there is a huge problem with any claims. Marxist Leninism is not, and never will be communism. Most frequently devolving into outright fascism(modern Russia) or oppressive dictatorial regimes, state capitalist (China) or otherwise (North Korea). As well, a country being west aligned, doesn’t make it capitalist.
This isn’t a defense of capitalism. Far from. Ideologically I trend libertarian(true libertarian the Déjacque kind) /anarco communist. So I criticize both heavily when they’re pulling their bullshit.
That may be true. But the governments claiming to be a sub sect of the ideology have surpassed the capitalist in every way. Great firewall of China etc.
Liberals pretend they are right wing libertarians. ML pretend to be communist. That doesn’t make it true. But it’s very humorous that you’re trying to use US government misinformation and propaganda to justify it.
Nationalization of industry isn’t a core ideology of communism. Having a nation or even a state isn’t required for that matter.
This, this is the height of something. That’s for sure. An ML trying to gaslight a communist about what a communist nation is. Using US Government misinformation/propaganda.
ML are not communist. Marxist leninism was designed and intended as a stopgap. To industrialize Russia and bring it to a point where then magically through some mechanism they never managed to figure out. It would switch over to a communist structure.
Just because some authoritarian or dictatorial structure nationalizes all major industry in a country. Does not make it communist. Just because something has been nationalized does not mean it belongs to the people.
Stuff means things. We don’t get to redefine it as we go.
But let me put this forward…
common ownership of the means of production with free access to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless, implying the end of the exploitation of labour.
This is a general characterization of communism. How can a “state” be stateless? Is this Schrodinger’s communism?
The problem with Marxist leninism, and why it will never achieve communism. Is because they simply expected the state to wither away. Because as any serious students of History knows. No one has ever fought wars. Everyone always just gives up power without a fight. When you centralize power. The people who have it are always eager to give it up. <Oprah> you get power! And you get power! Everybody gets power!! <Oprah />
The reason Marxist leninist States always develop into capitalist fascism or other brutal authoritarian concepts. Is because of the centralization of power. Those with the power covet and protect it. They will have to be overthrown themselves before and there will ever be a possibility of communism.
The reason ml will never defeat capitalism. It’s because they are a lateral move compared to capitalism. Capitalists don’t stand to benefit from it. They would lose power. The People Under The capitalist understand that they would not be any freer. In fact they would lose freedom. There’s no visible benefit.
The truth is capitalists will likely tear themselves apart before long. Things are already highly toxic. And with increasing automation soon will become untenable. China is starting to decay badly already as well. ML speed run that part. We’ll see if the man who made himself president for life then moved into the Forbidden City does the right thing. Or does what anyone in that situation would do. Leave the power to someone in his family. Or a loyal sycophant.
Then why is no one calling out the congress responsible for it? Biden didn’t pass or fund this. He isn’t pushing back against it hard enough. But he’s not the one that passed it. Or threatened to campaign against him when he just delayed delivery. I don’t see anyone calling out mike Johnson.
Never implied he wasn’t. Only implied that the obsessive focus on him is suspicious and short-sighted if someone actually wanted it to improve things in gaza. He is a small part of the equation and the problem. Mike Johnson has already said that he will do everything it takes to continue the genocide in Gaza. That he and his House of Representatives is aiding in supplying directly.
Any place that has large dedicated fan bases can come off toxic. Open source, Linux and politicd aren’t any different. There will always be those that feel you aren’t the “right kind” of fan etc. Just do your best to be introspective and understanding. It’s the best any of us can often do.
It’s definitely a shock for example to slip from the shallow pool of “left” in western, especially American politics. Into a system originally started by leninists/stalinists. And I’ve seen plenty of toxicity to non conforming lefties from that group. Though to be fair, as an anti authoritarian lefty. I know I have issues when dealing with authoritarians. Including leninists /stalinists. Which I’m trying to moderate. Seeing as many of them are very young naive and impressionable. As well as much less likely to listen when someone is hostile.
It’s not a critique of the child. It IS a critique of the system. No one is saying what he did was bad, or that he shouldn’t have done it. They’re saying HE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO. It’s like the heartwarming stories of Americans funding their medical care through go-fund-me. It’s horrifying to any sensible person.
Anarchist and Libertarians can care for each other. If there ever was a more clearer justification for actual taxes and government. It’s where it’s things that would increase access to freedom. Like not having to beg to survive, come into the conversation.
Its a spectrum that exists on the left running from libertarian to authoritarian. Not from capitalist to socialist. Democrats, Democratic socialist, social Democrats are not the same thing or part of a spectrum of Democrats. They are distinct and different ideologies that share a term but disagree on many other things. There are no left wing Republicans despite authoritarians existing on both the left and the right.
Libertarianism is a left wing ideology born of the 19th century. The concept of a right-wing libertarian was not widely accepted before the red scare of the 1950s and '60s. Nearly a century later. Because it is quite literally impossible to be a capitalist and favor that kind of freedom. When your concept of freedom is the freedom of capital. If capital is free we are all slaves to it. And therefore not free.
Deeper than that be very basic concept of capitalism is authoritarian in nature. It’s concept of private property as opposed to personal property requires a strong authority to enforce it and protect it. Being absolutely incompatible with actual libertarianism. Or the concept of public property as as envisioned by Actual libertarianism.
Further it is a gross misrepresentation to saying that Libertarians or even anarchists are anti-government, or anti-economic redistribution. Strictly speaking that’s just capitalists. All Libertarians or anarchists want is small, more granular, and accountable government. Said government to collecting funds via taxing for robust public housing is not anti libertarian or even anti-anarchist. It’s just anti-capitalist.
And just to finish off. Wikipedia isn’t necessarily authorative. And political Compass despite being wildly more accurate than the political Spectrum as often portrayed in Western Nations is still a misrepresentation.
Socially liberal fiscally conservative is the most meaningless label/platitude in American politics for sure. Even some Republicans will classified themselves that way. As well as Larp-atarians and democrats. Truly meaningless. Of the three groups Democrats probably come closest to actually being that. While still falling well far of it. Literally everyone is conservative with their resources, but wants everyone to believe they aren’t anti social.
Homeless as an example. Everyone treats it like some complex unsolvable problem. When everybody knows the solution. Give them actual housing. The kind that allows them to have stability and security in their life. Not just access to a shower, and overnight use of a random cott in a roach/rat infested building that they’re forcefully turned out of every morning. With no regular access to actual meals. If we just “gave actual housing” to them. That would take care of 60 to 80% of homeless. The few that would remain don’t have homeless as a primary problem.
A libertarian might debate whether we should do this at the town/city, county, state or national level. They wouldn’t argue that we shouldn’t, or already are doing too much to address it. As many larp-atarians do. Larp-atarians can’t even agree on a basic concept of freedom beyond capital/capitalism.
Many, but not all support legalization of marijuana. Many but not all even support equal rights. Whether it’s about racial, gender, or sexual lines. The term that best describes Larp-atarians, is selfish. Their views on freedoms etc don’t really extend much beyond themselves. And worse. Many will vote Republican if there isn’t a Larp-atarian on the ballot. Which considering how anti free speech etc they’ve been for decades. Makes them an extremely anti libertarian group to vote for whether you consider yourself right or left.
Fascist. Because they only support that with the expectation of being given deference or increasing their power at the cost of everyone who rejects or refuses them. Not to compare them literally to Hitler or the nazis. But Hitler offered social support to his chosen people as well. That doesn’t make him a good person. Or even right.
Take the proselytization out. Give it unconditionally like the Samaritan did. It’s one of the biggest parables in Christian teaching. So It’s oddly suspicious they all ignore it. Either they’re not really Christian. Or they could use to read their book.
There’s no arrogance or redefinition of beliefs involved anywhere here. It’s all facts and history. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Because belief specifically does not require truth facts or knowledge. Often it’s the opposite.
Also note when I use the term fascist to describe them I made a point of specifically not comparing them directly to Hitler or the nazis. Just because someone’s a fascist does not necessarily mean they are a monster. Fascism however always leads to monsters.
And just to finish since I sense that you’re getting emotional and defensive here. I see you around quite a bit and generally upvote your posts. Because you seem generally pretty on the ball and have a reasonable understanding. I simply disagree with you on this point. And have pointed out factually, philosophically, and historically why. I just hope at some point you take the time to read and consider. You are more than welcome to disagree after that. Just consider that because something is written, no matter where it is written. Does not inherently make it true.
How is the origin and basis of libertarianism subjective. And again how are Western political Scholars authoritative. Capitalism literally existed back when libertarianism was created. They specifically chose to create an ideology outside it.
Calling unfettered capitalism libertarianism in no way reflects libertarianism as it was created. Claiming that the freedom of capital is equivalent to actual freedom is an absurdity. If you have access to a freedom that others do not. Due to anything like capital or resources that’s not a freedom. That’s a privilege and should not be protected.
Likewise, the non aggression principle. Capitalists or any other group claiming to abide it’s definition of private property can’t also unhypocritically claim to abide the non-aggression principle. Private property demands aggression and violence to enforce it.
If a homeless starving man walked into or broke into a wealthy person’s second, third house, or yacht. Knowing that this season or time of year they would not be there. And took a tchotchke in order to be able to afford to feed themselves. What would the response be? Would it be understanding and assistance? Or would they be chased down by armed men and most likely locked up and deprived of freedom for a considerable amount of time? Better yet would a wealthy person face remotely the same response stealing from poorer people?
Remember post ex parte appeals to Authority can always be overridden by just pointing to the origins of the ideology and the fact that for a century there were no accepted right wing Libertarians.
In its day the remotely closest thing to what we would consider a modern libertarian were those like Friedrich Hayek. Who was then considered an outsider and Fringe group to what was recognized libertarianism. Not to mention if I’m not mistaken came along well after the establishment of the ideology. Simply seeking to repurpose it. If he was considered Fringe and outside the mainstream. How then can his viewpoints be considered what was always intended for libertarianism? Not revisionism but main stream. Clearly it wasn’t. But maybe you have some writing and evidence from the ideologies origins. Writings that aren’t Hayek’s or his acolytes Rothbard or Friedman.
Rothbard considered the modern founder of rightwing libertarianism. Again almost a century after the ideologies founding. Openly just rebranded classic liberalism. Which again, wasn’t libertarianism. But a separate incompatible ideology. Though claiming to have similar goals via different policy. The claims have never been proven however.
So if were gonna debate let’s debate. What actual support for your claims do you have?
What part of using terms like libertarian and libertarianism as they were designed is subjective? Isn’t trying to redefine terms to mean something they were not designed to mean, actually the subjective thing?
I justified calling them fascist because they fit several of the markers of fascism. Nationalism in terms of Christian nationalism being one big glaring one. There are plenty of Christians who aren’t nationalists. Odd that you chose to try to justify Christian nationalists. And again I point you towards Hitler’s government. He had high economic social support for his chosen people. Yet they were a right wing fascist government. In much the same way fundamentalist Christian nationalist social support only extends to proselytizing and no further. No actual support or Solutions for people in need.
Worse. These so-called Christian nationalist destroyed and gutted much more effective and cost efficient programs. In order for less effective use of proselytizing through the government. That said. Again, decent people get roped into these horrific schemes thinking that they’re doing good. They are doing evil in the Christian and atheistic sense of the word. But they can still be decent people despite their actions. But only because of their misguided intent.
What question did I dodge? I answered that. Wait. You think there are left wing fascists? I mean it would fit with redefining left-wing Libertarians to be right wing I suppose. So I shouldn’t be shocked. Even though fascism is defined and accepted as being a right wing ideology.
So first things first. Nolan was a liberal, despite calling himself libertarian. Liberal == economic freedom, libertarian == social freedom. Always has been. Always will be. Second I was not aware that the Nazis were liberal and supported economic freedom. Honestly everything I’ve seen historically screamed the opposite. You know, the whole if you aren’t with us we kill you. Not a socially or economically “liberal” vibe. But I’d be interested to see what your justification for the claim is.
Why would you not weight social Freedom over economic freedom? Society is the basis of the economy. Who in their right mind would prioritize economic freedom over social freedom? Who would want prioritize being the wealthiest inmate in a concentration camp for instance. over being free but having wealth similar to everyone else?
Let’s put this in better perspective. The transition from mercantilism to capitalism. Capitalism provided zero new economic freedom. There were immensely wealthy non royals that owned trading companies. But they were socially segregated from the royals and could never become them outside of marriage which was also segregated. Capitalism offered new social freedom, now us low born could become the equivalent of the royals based largely on dumb luck and chance. The change was strictly about social freedom. As surpurfluous and damaging as that particular freedom was.
Finally there is no meaningful economic freedom without social freedom. Without social Freedom you will be permanently segregated from economic success. Black people and minorities for example in the United States technically have access to economic freedom. And yet it is always such a noteworthy thing anytime one of them actually becomes economically successful. Because they generally do not have the social freedom.
Yep it’s got Biden over a barrel figuratively and literally. I think he would like nothing more than to wash his hands of Bibi the butcher. Which would at best neutralize a century of foreign policy in the region. For Better or For Worse. Most likely worse.
If we abandon israel. Those in Gaza may or may not be safer. It’s not even guaranteed. Then plenty of the region would then go after Israel and more innocent people would still end up getting killed. It’s a literal no win situation.
For what it’s worth though I would cut off ties with BB’s Israel and offer Asylum to all those there who wish to get out of that situation
I think more democracy is better. Which post 2016 the Democrats did make the primary more democratic. Sanders still lost fair and square both times. Even in 2016 Sanders didn’t face anything substantially different than Obama did in 2008. By rights the Democrat party doesn’t have to let anyone run as a Democrat either. If they feared him they didn’t have to let him run. Hell, till the 1970s they didn’t even hold primaries as we recognize them. So your claims don’t really make sense.
Lemmy was literally started by ML. Who misidentify as Communists. Giving communists a bad name. There are literally people here who regularly defend lenin, stalin, Mao, Soviet russia, china, North korea, Etc. He’s not wrong. And if you feel attacked I think that says more perhaps about you than anyone else.
I Trend left libertarian/ anarcho communist. Yet I regularly get called a neoliberal by many of the Marxist leninists around here for not playing Simon Says group think. Far more often than I get called a tanky by right Wingers who visit. Which is saying something because being anti authoritarian I critique both pretty regularly.
Quick EditI don’t stand behind everything PJ posts. Some I think is in bad taste as is much of Ozma’s. But they’re definitely not wrong in this case.
Sad to say, you aren’t really wrong. We all actually need each other and have a lot to offer. It’s just too easy for ignorance and pride to get in the way.
I think the exact term use was neoliberal. But they do treat them as synonymous. You’re not wrong about that.
It’s like calling all ML tankies. They’d be up in arms banding together if you did that to them. Yet they think it’s fine to do it to others. They know what they’re doing. And they’re not endearing themselves to anyone else that is for sure.
Communism life expectancy (sh.itjust.works)
WTF Joe... (lemmy.world)
Lemmy can feel unwelcoming at times
People say lemmy isnt as toxic as reddit and while i feel thats partially true i also feel its partially not...
A Missouri fifth grader raised enough money to pay off his entire school's meal debt (www.cnn.com)
RFK Jr Rejected by Libertarians After They Loudly Booed, Heckled Trump (www.commondreams.org)
How campus protests flip-flopped America’s free speech debate [Colin Meyn | 05/25/24 | The Hill] (thehill.com)
cross-posted from: lemmy.world/post/15790262...
Bernie would have won... (lemmy.world)
Liberals are not 'the Left'... (lemmy.world)