Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?

  • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    I’d agree the MLs aren’t Marxist. I don’t think a Marxist would unironically stan China Russia and north Korea.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 days ago

      On what grounds do you say Marxist-Leninists aren’t Marxists? The world over, the vast majority of Marxists fall under the umbrella of Marxism-Leninism.

      • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        You can’t just claim ownership of all communism and claim everyone falls under the ML umbrella, especially when MLs support dictatorial regimes that are antithetical to communism.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          I am not “claiming ownership of all Communism,” I am accurately stating that Marxism-Leninism is by far the most common form of Marxism, as it is the basis for the vast majority of AES states past and present. It has real, practical foundations and as such has continued popularity internationally. This is less true in the West, where AES states are violently combatted daily.

          • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 days ago

            I guess there’s a disconnect on what Marx actually thought and what they believe then, as op has pointed out. And the whole Russia China north Korea thing.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  Again, vague gesturing and no actual points. What do you mean when you say “Communists love authoritarians?” What does it mean to “stan” a country? This is all terminally online phrasing that divorces itself from practical experience of actual practicing Communists, and not just armchair leftists in the West.

      • chaogomu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        8 days ago

        Well, first of all, Lenin betrayed the revolution and implemented a new form of Feudalism, not communism. His party lost the 1917 election, and he threw a hissy fit that launched a civil war.

        All because he thought that his way was best, so he created a totalitarian dictatorship. And then handed it over to Stalin, who made everything worse.

        Marx himself said that communism needed to rise out of capitalist democracy. It cannot rise out of a dictatorship, because dictators never voluntarily give up power.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 days ago

          This is extremely wrong on several accounts, to the point of absurdity in several parts.

          First, Lenin did not “betray the revolution.” Lenin and the Bolsheviks carried out the revolution. Had they not had the real support of the working class via the Soviet system implemented prior to the establishment of the USSR, they could not have established Socialism to begin with.

          Secondly, Lenin did not “implement a new form of feudalism.” This is utterly divorced from reality. Feudalism is characterized by agrarian peasantry that live on land owned by a feudal lord, till the land, pay rent to said lord, and manufacture for themselves the bulk of their consumption. The Soviet model was that of a Soviet Republic, characterized by Public Ownership and Central Planning, both of which are key aspects of Marxism as conceived by Marx himself, not Lenin.

          Third, the election in the liberal bourgeois government. Russia in 1917 had 2 governments, the Soviet Government supported by the Workers and Peasants, and the Provisional Government supported by the Bourgeoisie and Petite Bourgeoisie. The Socialist Revolutionaries won the election in the Constituent Assembly for the bourgeois government, however faith in the bourgeois government was already gone! The Soviet Government toppled the Provisional Government, solidifying itself as the only legitimate government. Lenin did not throw a “hissy fit,” the point of the Constituent Assembly was to show just how detached from the will of the Working Class the bourgeois government was.

          Fourth, the notion of the USSR as a “totalitarian dictatorship.” This is false on both accounts. The Soviet Democratic model is well documented, such as by Pat Sloan in his book Soviet Democracy. The Soviet Republic extended democracy to economic production, and was a dramatic improvement for workers over the Tsarist regime and the bourgeois Provisional Government. The USSR was also not a dictatorship, the General Secretary was not a position of absolute control, even the CIA didn’t believe it to be.

          Fifth, Marx himself. This is perhaps your most absurd claim. Marx never once said Communism “rises from Capitist Democracy.” Marx was both entirely revolutionary, believing reforming Capitalist society without revolution to be impossible, and similarly did not even believe Capitalism was required for said Communist revolution to take place. Marx believed Markets have a tendency to centralize, laying the foundations for Public Ownership and Central Planning. Even in a Socialist state, markets can and will exist. From Marx:

          The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.

          Marx believed Capitalism makes Communist revolution inevitable by its own mechanisms, but not that Capitalism is required to perform said revolution! We see with real, practical experience that the Proletariat is the true revolutionary class, but even in countries where the Proletariat make up a minority of the population as compared to the peasantry revolution is still possible. Markets cannot be abolished overnight, but that doesn’t mean it is not a Socialist system.

          I seriously recommend you read theory, or revisit it if you’re just rusty. If you want help, I made an introductory Marxist reading list, and I’d love feedback.

          • chaogomu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            Wow, the alternate reality you live in must not be littered with millions of bodies of the people Lenin and Stalin murdered.

            They were both monsters and, by every single definition, totalitarian dictators. But you keep on worshiping them

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              What a horribly dismissive response to what I believe to be a well-thought out addressing of what I considered to be real concerns of yours. If you cannot honestly engage with clear Marxist analysis despite claiming to be speaking from a leftist perspective, and must strawman me as “worshipping” anyone in the face of said analysis, then you aren’t actually interested in truth nor leftism. Leftism becomes a fuel for whining on the internet for you, and not an actual practical tool for changing the horrible systems we live in.

              Can you honestly respond to my comment, or not?

              • chaogomu@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                Okay, lets walk through the timeline here.

                The February Revolution kicks off, and the people win, one of the main demands is a democratically elected council who will write the new Russian constitution.

                A few months later, Lenin rolls into town fresh from his 17 year long exile and does everything he can to undermine both the Provisional Government, but also the Petrograd Soviets.

                The whole Duel Power thing was tenuous, and Lenin wanted more power, so he overthrew the provisional government. But he did allow the November elections of the Russian Constituent Assembly. The first and last free and open elections in Russia.

                But the Bolsheviks lost the election, threw a hissy fit, and banned the other political parties, disbanded the Assembly, and set themselves up as totalitarian rules of Russia, kicking off a civil war.

                Everything after that doesn’t fucking matter because it’s mostly lies. Lenin shutdown a democratically elected body because he lost. Then he set himself up as a dictator and banned any other political party.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  Lenin overthrew the bourgeois Capitalist government, the elections were already not free and fair, unless you believe the only ones that should be allowed to vote are men, among which the more privledged were the only ones allowed to participate. The Soviets were more free and fair, and moreover extended the right to vote to all, including women.

                  Lenin didn’t overthrow Capitalism because “he wanted more power.” Lenin overthrew Capitalism because he was a dedicated Marxist and wanted to establish real worker control. It is painfully obvious that you have read none of Marx nor Engels nor Lenin. Moreover, Lenin was not a dictator, he was elected and could have been recalled at any time, as the Soviet System added that ability over the Provisional Government, which sought to retain bourgeois control.

                  Do you consider yourself a Marxist? If not, why pretend to be an authority? If so, why haven’t you read Marx or responded to my direct explanations of Marxist theory?