• Filthmontane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    You’re showing statues of Lenin in countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure.

    When Lenin took power, Russia had nothing. It was in the middle of WW1, there were regular famines, almost everyone was illiterate, and it was in no condition to establish a socialist economic plan. So, Lenin created a temporary economic model called The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. This is a centrally planned economy designed to rapidly develop infrastructure and industry in a country that has none. Lenin was already ceding power to the worker’s councils when he died. Stalin decided he liked The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and did not cede power back to the worker’s councils.

    Those countries never experienced Communism. They never even experienced socialism. They destroyed those statues because they hated The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Living in a system designed for a short temporary economic boom for decades is no fun.

    • CHINESEBOTTROLL@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      countries in which the Dictatorship of the Proletariat failed to cede power to the working class and establish a socialist economic structure

      Oh, so like every single other place that tried to implement that deranged system? Thank you for this very important distinction.

      • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s so very capitalist to look at failed attempts to escape capitalism which were sabotaged by capitalists as indication that the need to rebel is the problem.

        • gxgx55@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Failing to account for greed for power some people have is in itself a fatal flaw, to be honest. Anyone who advocates for the exact same actions and glorifies the USSR knows what they are doing, they’re hoping to come out on top after their desired revolution. Unfortunately, there are plenty of those kinds of people on this platform…

          • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Are Leftists advocating for the exact same actions as the USSR, or are Capitalists gaslighting the ignorant into believing they are?

            • gxgx55@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              No, I’m just saying tankie infestations are so widespread and loud that they have a decent amount of leverage on what the average person thinks of communism, and tankie opposing leftists are either not loud enough, or not numerous enough.

          • phobiac@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Out of curiosity, how do you think governments in large capitalist economies (such as the US) properly account for greed for power and keep it in check? Do you think they are doing a good job on that front?

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                11 months ago

                That’s objectively false. USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs. Nobody worried about losing their job and ending up on the street or that they wouldn’t be able to retire in dignity. People had reasonable work hours and enjoyed over 20 days vacation. None of the capitalist regimes around today are able to achieve these things.

                • PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  “USSR managed to provide everyone with food, housing, healthcare, education, and jobs”

                  the victims of the holodomor would like a word

        • CHINESEBOTTROLL@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          failed attempts

          They didn’t fail. I mean you can criticize the ussr, but it was not capitalist

          which were sabotaged by capitalists

          What a weird thing to say. The USSR had sovereign control over the largest country in the world by far + a lot of allies. The capitalists can’t even get rid of north Korea. Its not the capitalists, the system is just shit

          the need to rebel is the problem

          I mean its fine to rebel, but if your goal is communism I will bet on another case of “tHatS nOT rEaL coMMUnIsM”

          • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence. The two concepts are antithetical. The USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism.

                • SneakyThunder@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Ok, can you “educate” me why I need to get rid of my private property?

                  And fascists practiced economic policies of “corporatism”, not capitalism

            • CHINESEBOTTROLL@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Communism doesn’t include a hierarchy of power enforced by violence

              Very convenient, since nothing will ever meet this standard, so you will be able to say “that’s not communism” for the rest of your life. Actually sounds like the definition on anarcho capitalism

              The two concepts are antithetical

              Maybe to you, but many of the people in power at the time believed they were on the way to communism

              USSR was somewhere between capitalism and fascism

              I know of two common definitions of capitalism: “a system mostly organized around a profit-motive” and “a system in which individuals are mostly free to enter into consensual contracts”. I don’t see how the USSR is close to either of these. It was closer to fascism, tho there are also large differences

              • TrismegistusMx@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                “Nothing will ever meet this standard” ~CHINESEBOTTROLL

                If CHINESEBOTTROLL says it, then it must be true.

                The two concepts are antithetical, even if the ignorant and corrupt claim it for themselves. Modern Christianity is antithetical to the Gospels of Christ, and that remains the case even as America slides into Christofascism. Fascists have always been steeped in irony because their core beliefs are based in the ignorance of ego.

                You having an ignorant concept of capitalism doesn’t have any bearing on reality, except that it causes you to ignore the atrocities of the system that keeps you fat and happy.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        What about all these capitalist places that fell into fascism? What about the successful capitalist states that are currently falling into fascism?

        • CHINESEBOTTROLL@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          What about them? The choices here are not “what we have now” vs “trust the people that want to try communism again”

          • bouh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            My point is about the flawed argument : “communism is bad because the attempts have failed”. Well, there are more capitalist attempts that failed than communist ones, so the argument doesn’t hold.

            • CHINESEBOTTROLL@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              My argument is not “look how many attempts have failed” but “look, of all of these many attempts, every single one has turned into a kafkaesque nightmare”. At this point it is not even clear that “successful communism” is something that can exist in our world

              On the other hand, while many (depending on your perspective you might even say most) capitalist systems fail, there are absolutely some that work ok. Of course nothing is perfect in the real world. But the life of say a danish person is not only materially well off, but also free and full of dignity, which was true of none of the experiments in communism

              • bouh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’m pretty sure many Chinese are well off, free and full of dignity.

                It’s also easier to be a successful country when you’re not under ambargo just because you’re not sold to capitalist companies. Did the US left even one communist country live normally?

                But more importantly, how many successful capitalist countries, today, aren’t going fascist at full speed?

  • CookieJarObserver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Lenin himself wasn’t the problem and the Statures for him are usually for being a Revolutionary and removing the Tzar.

    Stalin was the actual problem.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Lenin was a counterrevolutionary that brutally suppressed any dissent and directly placed Stalin (being well aware of what a person he was) in a position that would make his later takeover possible.

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Let’s be honest. Lenin is the problem. Karl Marx was a philosopher who spoke with a lot of figurative language. Which Lenin treated as all literal dogma. And I am here to tell you taking figurative work literally is one of the worst decisions you can make. Just like evangelicals who take the bible literally. When it isn’t even a coherent work of fiction. Let alone a solid system of rule and law.

      Absolute power corrupts absolutely. As can be clearly seen in every major country that has tried Lenin’s blind ideology. (Cuba had some special circumstances that kept it from spiraling as fast as the others. Plus Venezuela is still a bit early to call. But likely will get there) Or pretty much every major capitalist nation as well. With Lenin as the lynchpin consistently making bad decisions. (Stalin) I think it’s probably safe to say he had good intentions. But was far out of his depth and it showed.

      And I’m not some liberal, or fascist critiquing from the right. Just a pro social democracy slightly libertarian leaning socialist.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Technically correct. They were under Stalins Marxism-Leninism, which was supposed to be a placeholder until true communism could be implemented.

      But it’s a bit disingenuous to split that hair in this thread. The irony being that the latter are all countries that got to experience the kind of gouvernemental structure that Lenin facilitated.

    • BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      You can argue if they had sunshine scenario communism all day, but they certainly was under the oppressive thumb of USSR.

    • PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      True Communism is impossible to sustain in the real world. it requires someone unimpeachable at its head. It affords too much power and no accountability to those in charge. Even if it were to start out well, sooner or later corruption would seep in. Communism is impossible while human greed exists