• Arelin@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    122
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Just as capitalist states are “authoritarian” against working class interests, socialist states are “authoritarian” against capitalist interests.

    The state is a tool for one class to oppress another. The goal of (most) communists is to transition from capitalism — where the capitalist class is in power — to a stateless, classless communist society via socialism — where the working class is in power.

    Public perception of which is more “authoritarian” therefore depends on which class is currently in power and is able to manufacture consent, and that is the capitalist class in the vast majority of the world right now since the USSR’s overthrow.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 months ago

      socialist states are “authoritarian” against capitalist interests

      The problem with this claim is that the USSR was quite authoritarian towards everyone. The Gulags were a place merely of political repression. Political jokes that are part and parcel of American late night comedy shows would get people harsh labor sentences during certain periods. The claim that this had to happen to protect the working class seems thin.

      • Ashtear@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        3 months ago

        One regime’s political-dissident-by-speech is another’s dissident-by-drug-addiction. America’s “War on Drugs” was purely political disenfranchisement along racial lines, and it’s a major reason why the US continues to have higher incarceration rates than the USSR had in many of the years the Gulag system was operational.

        By the way, prison rape jokes have long been a part of those late night comedy shows, to give you an idea of just how ingrained the American prison culture is.

      • squid_slime@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        read the resent news of Julian Assange or John Pilger there’d be a lot more if i could think to name them

  • Alsephina@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    With the USSR overthrown, virtually all mainstream media now is capitalist propaganda. And the capitalist class obviously would not want the working class to prefer a system where workers are in power.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      3 months ago

      Being familiar with Bulgarian corruption, I’m going to confidently state that their percentages aren’t due to a rounding error.

      I was in Hungary last year and the nostalgia for communism is high and a significant portion of the population still remembers all the bad parts - Orban has really destroyed the social safety nets there and it hurts to see.

      • angel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        3 months ago

        Hungary was also the best part of the Soviet Bloc to live in for the people.

        So it’s not just that modern Hungary is worse: communist Hungary is more miss-able than communist East Germany.

        Nigel Swain’s two books on the subject are good:

        • Collective Farms Which Work? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)

        • Hungary: The Rise and Fall of Feasible Socialism (London: New Left Books, 1992)

        He’s writing from the perspective of a non-red English academic who’s like… “wait… this works?? how do we explain the anomaly?”

        Hungary had full shelves, booming agriculture, available consumer goods.

    • Sagittarii@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      I’d also expect there’s more and more people propagandized by capitalist media in post-Soviet states as time has passed since capitalist bastards took it over. People who have not lived under socialism or experienced the massively decreased quality of life from the privatization forced on those countries.

      Though fortunately it seems like the Russian capitalists have not managed to succeed in this, with more and more people identifying with the USSR than the capitalist Russian Federation in recent years.

      Hard to do that at the heart of the revolution I guess. Maybe Russian communist parties could use that to become more revolutionary, specially with Russians able to see the stark difference between Russia under capitalism and China thriving under socialism. Doubt that’ll happen while Putin is in power though.

    • RedditWanderer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      This graph is such bullshit. If you were being honest in your arguments there would be no need to alter the results of the study.

      This is the original graph - “About the same” answers were given directly to “worse”, fabricating results.

      This is the study. Despite their life “not being better” on average, they still conclude that Communism has its downsides and are in no way saying they want to go back to it.

    • Dkarma@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      But in practice communism ends up the same. The workers had no actual power under Communism. The leaders still took it all.

    • Crampon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      They even had to build a wall to keep the capitalist working class outside of east Berlin.

      That Pew data is outdated. They have new data from 2019. Why did you post outdated and bad data to strengthen you belief?

      The latest research literally says conditions are better now for most people. Unless you hate homosexuals and women. Every metric indicate high standards of life and rights.

      I hate capitalism as much as the next person. But posting like you did is how we got Trump. Just faking everything till it happens.

      • RubicTopaz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        “Bad data” is when you use data more representative of people who have actually lived under socialism and experienced the massive decline in quality of life, social welfare, housing, etc after capitalist bastards took it over and privatized everything for their profit

        • Crampon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          Ye sure. No communist project has ever worked out because some people are by nature evil and hungry for power. Every communist regime has gone to shit because of it. Anyone hungry for power should be imprisoned because they are a danger to society. But most people rely on direction to function. It’s a double edged blade.

          Capitalism ruins everything in its path and communism eat it’s children. Welcome to the suck.

          • Cowbee@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            The “muh human nature” argument is a fallacy, you do realize that, yes? People are products of their environment, in Capitalism greed and selfishness are rewarded, so you think the way people act in Capitalism is natural for all economic systems, lmao.

          • Zagorath@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            I don’t think that’s the right reason, though it does touch upon one of the biggest reasons.

            Communist projects have failed in no small part because of external interference from non-communist countries. Look at the US and their infamous “bringing democracy” around the world, for example.

            But they’ve also failed not because of innate human nature, but because some people’s nature is indeed what you describe. And unfortunately, violent revolutions have a tendency to make it very easy for those people take step in and fill power vacuums left in the wake of the former regime’s demise. Even if the ideals of many of the boots on the ground in the revolution was entirely well-meaning, the leadership might not be, either from the start, or as the revolution goes on. That’s why so many of the more famous communist regimes are incredibly authoritarian.

          • Woozythebear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Name me one communist regime and I’ll tell you why you’re a fucking idiot and don’t know the difference between communism and socialism.

    • PrivateNoob@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hungarian here. There reason for being the top 1 was because the country was running on debt hell for 10-15 years.

      Kádár (the ruler of that time) had promised from 1956 that he will improve the living standards. This worked until the 70s, when the oil crisis happened and Kádár realized that with those current living conditions, the country needs to get loans. So he did that until communism have ended.

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      3 months ago

      This Soviet World

      Most Americans shrink from the word “dictatorship.” “I don’t want to be dictated to,” they say. Neither, in fact, does anyone. But why do they instinctively take the word in its passive meaning, and see themselves as the recipients of orders? Why do they never think that they might be the dictators? Is that such an impossible idea? Is it because they have been so long hammered by the subtly misleading propaganda about personal dictatorships, or is it because they have been so long accustomed to seek the right to life through a boss who hires them, that the word dictatorship arouses for them the utterly incredible picture of one man giving everybody orders?

      No country is ruled by one man. This assumption is a favorite red herring to disguise the real rule. Power resides in ownership of the means of production—by private capitalists in Italy, Germany and also in America, by all workers jointly in the USSR. This is the real difference which today divides the world into two systems, in respect to the ultimate location of power. When a Marxist uses the word “dictatorship,” he is not alluding to personal rulers or to methods of voting; he is contrasting rule by property with rule by workers.

      The heads of government in America are not the real rulers. I have talked with many of them from the President down. Some of them would really like to use power for the people. They feel baffled by their inability to do so; they blame other branches of government, legislatures, courts. But they haven’t analyzed the real reason. The difficulty is that they haven’t power to use. Neither the President nor Congress nor the common people, under any form of organization whatever, can legally dispose of the oil of Rockefeller or the gold in the vaults of Morgan. If they try, they will be checked by other branches of government, which was designed as a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent such “usurpation of power.” Private capitalists own the means of production and thus rule the lives of millions. Government, however chosen, is limited to the function of making regulations which will help capitalism run more easily by adjusting relations between property and protecting it against the “lawless” demands of non-owners. This constitutes what Marxists call the dictatorship of property. “The talk about pure democracy is but a bourgeois screen,” says Stalin, “to conceal the fact that equality between exploiters and exploited is impossible. . . . It was invented to hide the sores of capitalism . . . and lend it moral strength.”

      Power over the means of production—that gives rule. Men who have it are dictators. This is the power the workers of the Soviet Union seized in the October Revolution. They abolished the previously sacred right of men to live by ownership of private property. They substituted the rule: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.” -

  • Achyu@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Isn’t that generally said by countries that oppose them?

    The land of the less authoritarian had race discrimination until half a century ago, right? Seeing the BLM, it seems to have a prominent role even now. So are they any better?

    • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      The shite Americans will make about skin-colour.

      This comment doesn’t stand up to 3 seconds thought. It’s their one answer to every question.

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Honestly though, like our grappling with racism in the states smears our views of geopolitics so much. Like we struggle to imagine a culture not wrapped up in it.

        • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you’re saying authoritarianism can be explained by non-whiteness…

          But also saying that anyone opposing NATO become ipso facto non-white because it’s “an ever-shifting construct”…

          Then the “construct” has no explanatory power.

          Why not just say ‘authoritarianism’ is opposition to the NATO bloc?

          You’re saying “authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc”

          Why not skip the middle step?

          • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            ·
            3 months ago

            If you’re saying authoritarianism can be explained by non-whiteness…

            I’m not saying that. I’m saying that “whiteness” as a construct is a tool of capitalism/imperialism/colonialism. And that the Global North similarly tends to attribute “authoritarianism” to whichever states are acting insufficiently subservient to their imperialist interests at any given moment. And I’m saying that these two constructs have a tendency to be aligned with each other, because they’re both tools of capitalism/imperialism/colonialism.

            But also saying that anyone opposing NATO become ipso facto non-white because it’s “an ever-shifting construct”…

            Whiteness is as old as European colonialism, and has been baked into capitalism—which began in Europe—from the start. Whiteness has been twisted into all sorts of nonsensical logic pretzels. See for example honorary Aryans honorary whites. It has no explanatory power because it is simply a tool of power. Even the Irish, Italian, and other Catholic European immigrants have suffered it within our own country. As Josep Borrell has more-or-less said, the imperial core is the “garden”, and the rest of the world is the “jungle.” Imperialism uses race—which again is made-up bullshit—as a tool to justify their imperialism.

            You’re saying “authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc”

            I’m not saying that, but the NATO bloc often seems to imply it. international-community-1international-community-2

            • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              And I’m saying that these two constructs have a tendency to be aligned with each other

              It’s not empiricaly right tho. Hitler and Stalin are the first type-examples. In the modern era it’s normally Putin and Xi who get the label.

              • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                24
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                I already covered the origins of this propagandistic Western conceptualization of “authoritarianism”/“totalitarianism” in another comment in this post. But I’ll add a 1955 CIA report that was declassified in 2008.

                Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

                • dachshundwithadesktop [any, they/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I already covered the origins of this propagandistic Western conceptualization of “authoritarianism”/“totalitarianism” in another comment in this post

                  This is off topic, but I want to mention for the sake of other hexbears that I’m glad you linked to this other comment you made. It’s a good comment but no one on hexbear can see it or anything else in that reply chain. Since you were replying to someone from an instance not federated with us, it’s just not visible. A reminder that the exact same thread can look completely different depending on what instance you’re reading it from.

                • angel@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Equivocating Stalin and Hitler is some crypto Nazi shit.

                  It is standard in Westoid discourse, e.g. the Wikipedia page on “authoritarianism” probably does it idk didn’t read it.

                  People who use words like “authoritarianism” equate the two.

              • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                3 months ago

                Only one of those four is white, and it’s a classic reactionary tactic to downplay him compared to the Georgian and the older Han Chinese example

          • CindyTheSkull [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            3 months ago

            Why not skip the middle step?

            Go ask the NATO bloc and their supporters. The obvious and surface answer is that it has to do with making for an easy “us-vs-them” identifier. “Of course they’re bad, they aren’t white like us good wholesome folk are, who are inherently good and wholesome because we’re white, and being good and wholesome makes us right and correct in what we do and you can tell because we’re white. The ones who are bad clearly aren’t like us. They’re not white!” Yes, it is circular reasoning and garbage logic. But I don’t know why you’re getting pissy at us for that instead of the dipshits white people who keep moving the goalposts on the meaning of whiteness, as they always have done to suit their agenda. Take it up with them.

            • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sorry I have no idea what you’re talking about.

              The thread was asking about authoritarianism. I was slagging the people who said it’s about being black, not about Hitler, Stalin, the USSR, Putin, etc.

              • CindyTheSkull [she/her, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                17
                ·
                3 months ago

                You were asking about the shifting nature of the meaning of the term whiteness. Go up and read your own comment to see how you related that to authoritarianism. If you can’t follow your own train of thought, then I can’t help you because it makes it apparent you’re not asking in good faith.

                You’re saying “authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc”

                What I’m trying to explain to you is that “we” are not saying that. The people who use whiteness to justify their actions and otherize their enemies are saying that. This isn’t difficult.

                • frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Like I said, I’m here to slag Yanks and their know-nothing racist views of the world.

                  It’s astonishing how they’ll confidently lecture ya on things they demonstrate complete ignorance of.

              • Nakoichi [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                15
                ·
                3 months ago

                I was slagging the people who said it’s about being black, not about Hitler, Stalin, the USSR, Putin, etc.

                This is holocaust denialism.

        • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I have heard, from leftist, that Russian leadership has a higher tolerance for casualties on their side because THEY see the forced conscripts from easter Europe as disposalable. I have not seen/heard a NATO leader suggesting that they are.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    3 months ago

    Because authority carried out under the pretenses of private property is whitewashed in liberal states, who are the ones in your question doing the “considering”.

  • Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    3 months ago

    From Losurdo - A critique of the category of totalitarianism:

    Nowadays we constantly hear denunciations, directed toward Islam, of ‘religious totalitarianism’ or of the ‘new totalitarian enemy that is terrorism’. The language of the Cold War has reappeared with renewed vitality, as confirmed by the warning that American Senator Joseph Lieberman has issued to Saudi Arabia: beware the seduction of Islamic totalitarianism, and do not let a ‘theological iron curtain’ separate you from the Western world.

    Even though the target has changed, the denunciation of totalitarianism continues to function with perfect efficiency as an ideology of war against the enemies of the Western world. And this ideology justifies the violation of the Geneva Convention, the inhuman treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, the embargo and collective punishment inflicted upon the Iraqis and other peoples, and the further torment perpetrated against the Palestinians. The struggle against totalitarianism serves to legitimate and transfigure the total war against the ‘barbarians’ who are alien to the Western world.

    • novibe@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      3 months ago

      Ah yes, the legendary capitalist freedom to go homeless and die of preventable diseases. And the awful authoritarian communism of providing full employment and eliminating poverty.

      If you don’t think the USA is the most authoritarian country ever, your definition of authoritarianism is useless.