Haus avatar

Basing your opinions on socialism on how Russia implemented it makes about as much sense as basing an opinion on Democracy on how Putin has implemented it.


This entire thread is based on this. If comments are truthful.

sudo22, avatar

Legit question, what country is a better real world example?


Cuba, Vietnam, Allende’s Chile perhaps, but it’s not like any are perfect. There’s a wide range of socialist approaches used in different countries around the world though.

Moderate socialist governments effectively weren’t allowed to exist, the US sponsored fascist coups and did whatever they could to remove them. So the ones that were able to survive had to be more extreme, autocratic, and isolationist.


If your looking for modern day examples, the zapatistas are a pretty good example.

For historical examples you can look to the Paris commune, civil war Barcelona, the original zapatista movement.


1936 Catalonia.

But it is actually really hard to name examples. This video explains it quite well:

sudo22, avatar

Saved for later. Thank you!


Communism, like capitalism, is an extreme that has certain, very difficult to achieve, requirements. Capitalism needs everyone to be morally decent in order for companies to focus on winning customers through innovation instead of propganda and lobbying, and to accept losses instead of whining. Even the transition into communism is incredibly complicated and technically what where the USSR was stuck, and once there you have to hope that the rest of the world went along with it because it’ll work either on increbily small scales(individual companies, for example) or on a global scale but not really on a mid-sized scale. Plus in both you have basic greed and people who are literally just born narcissitic or legitimately psychotic.

Extreme ideologies are great thought experiments but rarely have any kind of well-developed protections built and are pretty fragile.

If you want a better answer, look at the quality of life in countries with stronger regulations and more communism-according-to-North America systems. In the heavily privatised U.S. there are a lot of people who live absolutely shit lives due to an abyssmal lack of protections. Even in Canada, which is far too close to the U.S. here, at least a homeless person can recieve some level of medical assistance including major surgeries and Covid stimulus was more than a cheap joke.



Canada’s medical assistance for the homeless is becoming just offer them an assisted suicide.


Fact check: True

Source: Parent’s friend went through MAID a month ago because they couldn’t get a job.


That’s a cute meme, but not true at all. Canada spends a lot of money on health care for the homeless. In fact, the current system of NOT spending enough on basic shelter and mental health & addiction supports means that we spend far more than we should on emergency care and downstream health-related consequences.

There is widespread agreement among those who work in social services that some form of supervised, humane institutional living is needed if we are going to solve the homelessness problem. There is hesitation to implement that because it is extremely expensive and politically fraught.

More importantly, if we are being honest, housing people in decent conditions for free would create a huge amount of competition with private sector landlords, retirement homes, long-term care homes, etc. Unfortunately, the “system” implicitly uses the threat of homelessness or squalid accommodations as a major lever to motivate people to work at jobs that are not very stimulating. Mind you, human nature being what it is, I think the same would ultimately be true under any economic system or form of government.

At least until our robotic AI overlords invent an unlimited energy source and take over the tedious work so we can all sit around doing whatever pleases us, lol.

Omega_Haxors, (edited )

Canada’s idea of dealing with the homeless is to send cops after them and then subsidize rental housing. Because that’s worked so far…

muad_dibber, avatar

How the USSR implemented socialism was pretty great in practice, the real history of it has just been hidden from you behind the thick fog of cold-war anticommunist propaganda.

Here’s a good intro video: Michael Parenti - Reflections on the overthrow of the USSR

teft, avatar

Anyone mentions soviets suck and the tankies come out of the woodwork.

“USsR was just misunderstood. Swearsies.”

Catfish, avatar

Learn to have a conversation.


Yellow Parenti is best Parenti


A lot of people don’t realize that the Soviet Union was seen as a bastion of democracy before the cold war, because it genuinely got a lot right.

In fact, it was democratic to a fault. Ultimately it was the people who voted to bring capitalism into the country. It was all downhill from there.

PolandIsAStateOfMind, avatar

14 year old white girl

Bravo they managed to also cram ageism and misogyny in the old “champagne socialism” meme. All in the single sentence.


Don’t forget racism









OMG lol ha ha i’m so sorry. Other people in this thread genuinely saying shit like that.


But yts are bad

Prunebutt, (edited )

Considering that the USSR only claimed to be socialist and used propaganda (in accord with the US) to convince the people that state control is the same as worker’s control over the means of production (it isn’t), the girl is probably correct.


Sir we are not doing reasons here, this is a meme sub.


Memes can still be incoherent.

muad_dibber, avatar

An Excerpt from Parenti - Blackshirts and reds:

The upheavals in Eastern Europe did not constitute a defeat for socialism because socialism never existed in those countries, according to some U.S. leftists. They say that the communist states offered nothing more than bureaucratic, one-party “state capitalism” or some such thing. Whether we call the former communist countries “socialist” is a matter of definition. Suffice it to say, they constituted something different from what existed in the profit-driven capitalist world–as the capitalists themselves were not slow to recognize.

First, in communist countries there was less economic inequality than under capitalism. The perks enjoyed by party and government elites were modest by corporate CEO standards in the West [even more so when compared with today’s grotesque compensation packages to the executive and financial elites.—Eds], as were their personal incomes and lifestyles. Soviet leaders like Yuri Andropov and Leonid Brezhnev lived not in lavishly appointed mansions like the White House, but in relatively large apartments in a housing project near the Kremlin set aside for government leaders. They had limousines at their disposal (like most other heads of state) and access to large dachas where they entertained visiting dignitaries. But they had none of the immense personal wealth that most U.S. leaders possess. {Nor could they transfer such “wealth” by inheritance or gift to friends and kin, as is often the case with Western magnates and enriched political leaders. Just vide Tony Blair.—Eds]

The “lavish life” enjoyed by East Germany’s party leaders, as widely publicized in the U.S. press, included a $725 yearly allowance in hard currency, and housing in an exclusive settlement on the outskirts of Berlin that sported a sauna, an indoor pool, and a fitness center shared by all the residents. They also could shop in stores that carried Western goods such as bananas, jeans, and Japanese electronics. The U.S. press never pointed out that ordinary East Germans had access to public pools and gyms and could buy jeans and electronics (though usually not of the imported variety). Nor was the “lavish” consumption enjoyed by East German leaders contrasted to the truly opulent life style enjoyed by the Western plutocracy.

Second, in communist countries, productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. Individuals could not hire other people and accumulate great personal wealth from their labor. Again, compared to Western standards, differences in earnings and savings among the populace were generally modest. The income spread between highest and lowest earners in the Soviet Union was about five to one. In the United States, the spread in yearly income between the top multibillionaires and the working poor is more like 10,000 to 1.

Third, priority was placed on human services. Though life under communism left a lot to be desired and the services themselves were rarely the best, communist countries did guarantee their citizens some minimal standard of economic survival and security, including guaranteed education, employment, housing, and medical assistance.

Fourth, communist countries did not pursue the capital penetration of other countries. Lacking a profit motive as their motor force and therefore having no need to constantly find new investment opportunities, they did not expropriate the lands, labor, markets, and natural resources of weaker nations, that is, they did not practice economic imperialism. The Soviet Union conducted trade and aid relations on terms that generally were favorable to the Eastern European nations and Mongolia, Cuba, and India.

All of the above were organizing principles for every communist system to one degree or another. None of the above apply to free market countries like Honduras, Guatemala, Thailand, South Korea, Chile, Indonesia, Zaire, Germany, or the United States.

But a real socialism, it is argued, would be controlled by the workers themselves through direct participation instead of being run by Leninists, Stalinists, Castroites, or other ill-willed, power-hungry, bureaucratic, cabals of evil men who betray revolutions. Unfortunately, this “pure socialism” view is ahistorical and nonfalsifiable; it cannot be tested against the actualities of history. It compares an ideal against an imperfect reality, and the reality comes off a poor second. It imagines what socialism would be like in a world far better than this one, where no strong state structure or security force is required, where none of the value produced by workers needs to be expropriated to rebuild society and defend it from invasion and internal sabotage.

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.


Never did any research, did you ?

SickPanda, avatar

What does the red symbol next to the username of OP mean?


Hey, not sure since I couldn’t see it, but I got arbitrarily banned, so maybe it was that. Gotta give it to the admins, they’re taking their LARPing seriously


For the USSRs faults I wouldn’t bet on older people hating their time under it. They did their complaining about the Soviet system in the few years before it got replaced with half a dozen oligarchies.

Also Love how this meme is a prime example of misogyny in how I remember the original meme not mentioning the gender of the teenager, but now since Girls = stupid idealists someone rewrote the caption to explicitly mention the communist being female (so we know that communism = stupid too)


I think ops the teenager here.


This is such poor logic. Being around when something happens doesn’t mean you somehow know a vast amount about that something. People later can study that something and known much more about it than people who were living during those times.

Ask the average American who was alive during the Cold War what the effects of it were on America and its population, they’ll say some generic shit they heard mouthed to them by politicians. Ask any 21 year old college student who just finished a course on the Cold War and its effects on America, and they’ll have much deeper understanding.

Being old and alive during something doesn’t make you knowledgeable about that something than someone younger and educated. You’d know this if you weren’t all idiots, but so many of you are dumbass motherfuckers.


OP really be asking why the meme is being anti-white racist 💀


… apart from that it’s also most unlikely it’s 14 year old girls who are the people writing this in online discussions.


Quick plug for this guy’s channel:

Not really political, just interesting first-hand accounts of life in the USSR (Ukraine specifically) with a bunch of period photos mixed in.


Ah yes, “communism”. Op show me 1 country with communism. Dictatorship with ‘communism’ in their name don’t count.


I can show many democracies in Africa like that! :D


Communism IS a dictatorship. There’s no other way.


I thought that dictatorship masked themself as Communism


Communism, especially Marxist-Leninism, seems to require some sort of benevolent dictator who is willing to work towards destroying their own power, which obviously never seems to happen. ML theories state the need for a Vanguard state, which is a dictatorship that is supposed to be there to simply enforce the rule of the working class until a time when it is no longer needed.

So the idea of dictatorship is built into the major form of communism that has been tried, basically. One of the main problems with this is that the steps a nation has to take before it gets to “true communism” in ML theory are ripe for abuse, and hard to get through without someone corrupt seizing power.

I think there are some good theories in Marx writings, it’s just the methods for attempting to implement it definitely need to be reexamined because they don’t work.

ZMonster, avatar

Thanks for that. Astute and insightful.

Murais, avatar

This is where I tend to disagree with Marx as well.

Capital is a fantastic book full of scathing and prophetic analyses of capitalism and its innate degradation of value and connection.

The Communist Manifesto is a book with some good ideas but some implementation that I find flawed. And that’s not a knock on Marx-- critiquing problems is a significantly easier prospect than offering solutions.

But a lot of Marx’s proposals for the implementation of Communism are rooted in authoritarianism, even if their end goal is the dissolution of the state and capital. Also, for an ideology versed in the formation and interdependence of worker communities, the Day of the Rope is kind of antithetical to establishing solidarity and mostly serves, I believe, as masturbatory schadenfreude.

But hey, I’m willing to fix some of the stuff that doesn’t work instead of throwing more fuel into the machine that over-harvests people and our planet to the point of destruction.

I really like this nuanced take, btw. Thanks for posting it.


The vanguard state is a mean to reach communism, it is not communism itself. That’s a pretty big difference.

The difference is the same with the gouvernement révolutionnaire in France during the revolution, and you can make parallels with US revolution too. I’m pretty sure the US government is very different from what it was during its war against UK.

Murais, avatar

Tell that to anarchocommunists.

I’m sure it will be news to them that they will want to hear.


Tell that to communes.


Every single IWW member is reading this comment and going “NO!!!”


Rule of thumb: If the US is sanctioning or at war with them, they’re communist.


Yeah, like Iran


I can name several countries that tried to do a communism, and wound up being what communists insist doesn’t count.


Such as?


Such as the Russian revolution that modern communists have mixed praise for until a dictator emerged and so it doesn’t count.

Or the Chinese revolution that modern communists have mixed praise for until a dictator emerged and so it doesn’t count.

Or the Cuban revolution that be serious you know goddamn well what we’re talking about. I wasn’t being coy. People call these dictatorships communist because they’re the only countries that were ever called communist, and - generally speaking - they became dictatorships after genuinely attempting to implement communism.

If you want to say it’s like shitting on democratic republics because of the French revolution, hey great sure, that’s an attempt gone terribly wrong. Revolutions are pluripotent and dictatorships can emerge from nearly anything. But advocates of secular democracy can point to examples that went right.


Wait are you telling me the Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither Democratic or a Republic?? Like they’d just lie?

noodle, (edited ) avatar

On Lemmy it is more like 40 something year old neckbeards that haven’t seen the light of day in 2 decades. They claim to struggle to make friends at parties but could easily run a country.


This meme doesn’t work, because in the scene the image comes from, we have every reason to believe Ron Swanson actually does know more than the employee at the hardware store.


TBF I wouldn’t be surprised if survivors of a collapsed dictatorship didn’t know much about the definition, theories, or philosophies of Communism. Stalin isn’t “the working people” and therefor his seizure of the means of production was not communism.

Album, avatar

I know it’s a meme but if your points are this reductive you might not be making an intelligent or rational argument.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • rosin
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • tacticalgear
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • thenastyranch
  • modclub
  • cubers
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • ethstaker
  • mdbf
  • bokunoheroacademia
  • khanakhh
  • Durango
  • cisconetworking
  • osvaldo12
  • tester
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • GTA5RPClips
  • lostlight
  • relationshipadvice
  • anitta
  • HellsKitchen
  • sketchdaily
  • All magazines