The Greatest Lie about the Red Scare is that it Ended
The Greatest Lie about the Red Scare is that it Ended
Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
My dad: “Yeah, maybe a good solution to the problem of not being able to pay rent would be government-provided housing”
Also my dad: “Socialism is horrible! If it wasn’t, then why would EVERYONE be trying to leave Communist countries like Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe???”
I wonder what the modern world would look like had the USSR not been dissolved, and repaired its relationship with the PRC.
To me the biggest hypocracy in general when it came to forms of communism.
It's a failed ideology, it will always collapse in on itself as soon as it grows.
Followed with
We need to destroy it at all costs to keep it from taking hold anywhere in the world.
You don't need to stop something that's self defeating. It's like the tower of babel story in the bible. Mankind was building up a great tower because they thought uniting they would be a powerful as gods, so god knocked over their tower, scrambled their languages to divide and conquer the world.... Isn't that kind of an admission that, God believed without his interference man can be as strong as he is?
Probably like Europe
why would EVERYONE be trying to leave Communist countries like Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe???
China is empty. Russia is empty. Cuba is empty. Vietnam is empty. South Africa is empty. They've all been hollowed out by the scourge of Communism. That's why nobody lives there anymore.
Meanwhile, the US is the most populous country on Earth. We have the densest cities. We have the largest apartment towers. We have the most-used transit systems. Our nation is full to bursting thanks to all of the people who want to live here. And the more traditionally conservative, the more flagrantly capitalist, the more Christian and Based and Traditional, the larger the US State. That's right, folks. West Virginia, South Dakota, Utah, and Idaho are the four most densely populated corners of the planet.
Socialism is the people. If you are afraid of socialism, you're afraid of yourself.
- Fred Hampton
Rest in Power Fred Hampton, a brave Marxist-Leninist that tried to do what was right and got murdered by the US police for it.
The same folks I know who wouldn't even consider a conversation about socialism are not going to be swayed when I quote any black man to them, much less a panther.
Totally fair. The trick is to meet them where they're at, and then work from there. The folks you're thinking about will take a lot of effort, but if union organizers can do it then so can you
"No, no, they tries to tricks us, precious [capitalism]! They wants to take you from us, stop you from helping us, precious, gollum!"
I'm not really knowledgeable enough to contribute to the discussion going on here.
I just wanted to say I've seen you engaging in good faith discussion all over Lemmy, and I really, really, appreciate that. Whenever socialism, communism, Marxism and the like come up, people are quick to jump to ad hominem and flinging shit-covered sarcasm at each other, and you consistently engage thoughtfully in the discussion, even when your interlocutors don't. Thank you.
Ignore what politicians say, look at what they do.
Both is good. Sometimes politicians are quite honest in an explanatory way for their actions, both need to be taken into account. They don't have to be honest, but their stance is usually projected clearly.
But the talking head on Fox told me what to think about socialism, using no facts or common sense.
What am I supposed to do? NOT believe them?
All you have to do is come up with a new name for it. It's not like any of them have a clue about what socialism actually entails.
Historically, such a strategy doesn't actually work. Sooner or later, you get accused of being a godless commie or a tankie anyways. You can either stand firm in your beliefs and attempt to sweep away the dirt of the Red Scare to accurately contextualize Socialism and AES states, or fail to support them at all, leading to issues like Trotskyism (poor understanding of theory and a lack of support for AES) or PatSocs (Nationalist Socialists in the Imperialist countries).
It worked when people rebranded "falsehoods" to "alternative facts" so why not try it?
Humans are brainwashed into thinking it's "Human nature" to be greedy and self-centered, so when someone comes offering help those stuck in this condition can't help but think "What's the catch?"
And the clearer it is that the person has good intent, the more dangerous the catch must be.
People aren't really "brainwashed" in the traditional sense, they seek license to confirm their biases that they think they benefit from. A good article on the subject is Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing."
"but you're gonna take my private property !"
That's the People's Toothbrush!
I think "private property" isn't well defined in socialist discourse and this idea of no private property gets a lot of backlash from some. A distinction between personal and private property needs to be made where one is used to generate capital in exchange for wages and the other is your dildo. The dildo is your personal property and no one is going to take it. A piece of land can be someones private property when they employ you and pay you a wage to work it - you get payed a pittance and they, without work, take the cream.
Its well defined IMO, but anti-communist propaganda intentionally spreads the wrong definition of it to make communists look scary.
A distinction between personal and private property needs to be made where one is used to generate capital in exchange for wages and the other is your dildo
That's always the definition. It is well defined, the problem is that there are national propaganda machines outright lying to the people.
This is a reasonable explanation, similar to the ones I write on the spot when attempting to explain things. Made more difficult by the fact many signs barring entry to owned land say "private property" (or some variation on it, at least in France and the US)
I think it's generally well-understood amongst Socialists, the issue comes from those first learning about Socialism and thinking it is applied as dogmatism to the strictest degree, and isn't a drawn out process of iterative improvement following revolution. For such people, they need to know if "going along with" Socialism means they can't have a gaming PC or something, but the reality of Socialism is that it isn't nearly as rigid or strict as it is stereotyped as.
the fear for good, is the fear for change or admitting they where wrong. it is pride, as well as lazyness, combined with stupidity and weakness. because weakness is not how strong one seems(or lack there of) but weakness, is how little a person would be their real self, as well as how much they assume that in order to be strong they need to supress others so they are in a worse state than them. supressing people is a sign of the weak, because they are blinded and can only destroy.
That's right, they aren't going to overcome their irrational fears. They'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future until it becomes normal and they realize the sky didn't fall. I actually had hope that we were on the verge of a strong progressive wave, but then millions of people decided not to show up because Harris wasn't perfect enough for them. So basically fuck y'all, and good luck with the whole People's Front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front deal. The thing about MAGA is they fucking show up, and they're gonna keep showing the fuck up. Idiots need to figure out that you don't make change happen by turning away when your ideal options don't appear on a menu so you can click on one and go back to scrolling. /end rant
I think what you're missing is that for most Socialists, electoralism has already been proven as a losing game to begin with, and is far below the minimum requirements to enact change. Real power comes from organizing, which is why Leftists always push for it (and when it happens, they get results).
It had everything to do with human greed.
As long as there is the suggestion or possibility, no matter how remote that anyone of us can become enormously wealthy, we won't want to change the system.
If we can simply help Americans understand small-s socialism from small-c communism, we'd be in much better shape.
Because yes, my healthcare is already paid in advance by me and everyone else from our taxes; and my buddy's emergency Sunday morning quintuple stent install after the widowmaker heart attack and two ambulances and a bed in one hospital before transfer (a third bus) to the regional trauma/cardiac center for the operation and 2 weeks of aftercare was free to him that day -- and his only concern was not dying. And that's not just normal but that's the general expectation. No monthly subscription, no premium cost, no user fee, just paid-parking and vendor-machine food for visitors not coming in via the train.
Our upcoming election will gut that, though. Being bankrupt, losing retirement savings and mortgaged to the hilt at 61 is the American dream mr Polievre has for all Canadian plebes.
I don't know what worse, the corruption of communism or the corruption of capitalism. Right now, we're in the American Nightmare stage of capitalism. Seems to me humanity can't have an economic system where a group of people want all the wealth and power.
What do you mean "corruption of Communism?"
How is this a meme?
The gandalf pictures, it's humourously describing the process of pitching Socialism to Americans. Simple.
You won't get it if you're taking the old bloke and his words at face value.
The meme value comes from the context, being a scene from LOTR.
I love how people act like their knowledge alone somehow makes them better than their peers, just utilizing knowledge to appear aloof, or above it all, when in reality, if capitalism shot itself in the chest and socialism took over tomorrow, we would still have the same rich 1% families stealing from the working class and none of us would actually be in any better a position because no damned political system to date has figured out how to keep the rich from sacrificing the poor for their own selfish ends. End of story. Time to change.
Not only is this ahistorical, it’s self-contradictory. If the same rich 1% still owns the means of production and is still expropriating the working class’ surplus value, then capitalism never died and socialism never took over.
That's not historically accurate, though. Socialist states have made dramatic improvements to the lives of the working class and generally dramatically reduced wealth disparity, such as in the USSR. This seems to be more political apathy than genuine analysis.
Capitalism sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats, and socialism also sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats.
Remember Stalin and his style of socialism? Just because one hell sucks doesn’t mean another hell is better.
The only type of socialism which has made any kind of sense in recent times is the Nordic Model.
Edit let’s not kid ourselves about the “greatness” of socialist countries when China has 50% poverty rate
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country
Here’s also a great article on how everyday life was like in the Soviet Union, https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en
Capitalism doesn't suck because of individual bad actors, but systemic issues. Competition naturally results in monopolization and the death of competition, and rising disparity. In addition, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall results in businesses and corporations seeking to move production abroad, to over-exploit and under-develop countries in the Global South by paying poverty wages. This extends to IMF loans, as well.
Socialism doesn't have these same problems. No, it isn't some perfect system, such a claim would be absurd. However, collectivization of Capital and producing with the aim of fulfilling needs, rather than pursuit of profit, helps to eliminate the excesses of Capitalist exploitation. In addition to the reduction in exploitation, central planning is very efficient once competition stagnates.
It's funny that you bring up the Nordic model, Nordic countries are seeing withering safety nets, (and are Capitalist, not Socialist) which in turn are generally funded from the same hyper-exploitation of the Global South in the form of brutal IMF loans and unequal exchange. The Safety Nets themselves came as concessions towards strong internal labor organization and the strong safety nets of the neighboring USSR, who had free high quality healthcare, education, and more. Now that the USSR is gone, the safety nets have been withering.
I wouldn't say decaying Imperialist ethno states are a "good" model to look towards.
I mean, every country to date has been an ethnostate of one type or another, with the exception of what America wanted or purported to be. I’d add Canada and Australia to that as well. Have a look at these socialists states, which one isn’t centered around a dominant ethnicity? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states. So I don’t think using the label of “ethnostate” to disparage democratic counties is justified.
Second, I agree that the global south is heavily exploited, but that seriously discounts successful countries in BRICS or East Asia. We need to understand why those countries succeeded, and others could not, and a lot of the failures of global south actors have to do with corruption and lack of solidarity with each other. Granted, imperial powers instigated instability in every continent, but it didn’t work many times, especially in East Asia. Africa is a great example of failing to realize its potential, a unionized Africa would be a force to reckon with. The “global south” needs to stop blaming convenient scapegoats for many of its own problems. You can’t be like, oh once we fix greed everything will be okay! How do you ever propose to fix greed? Even if the whole world agrees to be socialist, examples like Stalins USSR show us that greed exists to corrupt any economic and political model. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise.
I am not saying we have to be capitalist, I am saying it’s disingenuous to say that greed occurs because of capitalism, and not the other way around. You don’t have to dismantle the whole world to start taxing wealthy people at a higher rate, and start using those funds in a sensible way like they do in the Nordic model.
Remember Stalin and his style of socialism?
No. Cuz I wasn't alive at that time.
But yea, I did read about it in This Soviet World, Soviet Democracy, Russian Justice, and Blackshirts and Reds
Cool, also read about it on neutral sources
It's worth responding to your edit in a separate comment.
First, China. That data shows 45% living under $10 a day, and has no data provided on the "poverty rate" column. Not only are you misreporting by 11%, but you are conveniently reporting the wrong data. Essentially, you reported the wrong quantity for the wrong quality. Furthermore, this data is half a decade old, when we know 3 years ago China completed a mass poverty aleviation campaign and over the course of around a decade uplifted 800 million people out of poverty.
Furthermore, 10 dollars gets you far more in different parts of China than the wealthier coastal cities, who were the first to be developed more thoroughly. Given that a century ago China was among the poorest countries in the world, its progress has been astounding overall, and in the more rural inland areas have been a major focus in the last decade. Unlike more developed countries, China is still a developing country, and as such despite its rapid improvement has a long way to go before every area is like one of the more developed tier 1 cities.
Secondly, the USSR. Not only is this article from a Private Christian College, it does't contradict that, again, wealth disparity shrank to one of the lowest in the world while maintaining some of the highest rates of economic growth in the world, free, high quality education and healthcare were provided, literacy rates more than tripled to the highest in the world, science, technology, culture, and even sports flourished. Life expectancy doubled, and despite having much of their housing destroyed by the Nazi invasion in WWII, they quickly built the now stereotyped "soviet bloc" housing to house as many people as possible.
All the article really seems to say, therefore, is that society wasn't perfect, which nobody here has said. It does not make the case that the Socialist system was worse than the semi-feudalism of before or the Capitalism it is today, rather, it just said some degree of corruption existed but in a way that was far less than it was before or after Socialism.
The fact that you are either intentionally or unintentionally reporting wrong numbers for wrong metrics that are already outdated as some "gotcha" for countries that began as some of the poorest on the planet, and use the fact that the aren't like the Nordic Countries, that have spend centuries pillaging and looting the Global South and had centuries longer to develop, is dishonest and ill-informed. I suggest reading Super Imperialism by Hudson if you want to take a modern (2021 is the latest revision) look at the way the Global North, and specifically the US, rob and loot the world.
I can’t take anything you’re saying seriously because it’s just delusional, I am sorry.
Why do I say what you’re saying is delusional. Look, you’re opining about some made up thing I said (btw, I said 50% as a rough figure looking at the color bar, it’s 45.8%), but you’re neglecting that the many, many capitalists nations have MUCH LESS POOR PEOPLE PER CAPITA than China. So what exactly am I supposed to do, take their way of governance as something to aspire to? No, thank you. I am not anti-social and I hope better for others.
Stalin’s USSR proved that elitism and greed infects all economic tools and social ideologies. We also see this in China because no one is effectively allowed to own their home, the land is leased by the government. So consider this, if socialists like Stalin care so much about people, and the CPP is the modern equivalent of an anti-capitalist (not pure socialist) state, then what do you do with the 45.8% people making $10 per day (the US is at a hellish 2.2%). Why hasn’t China fixed their poverty by now?
In Stalins USSR, why were there bread lines for the common folk while their leaders had caviar and chocolate.** I am sure that’s because they weren’t “real” socialists, and I am sure you’ll do better!
Let’s also remember, that Stalin stole properties from the gentry, and made them mixed housing, but he and his family still lived in mansions. These are historical facts, just because you don’t like the people who say them doesn’t erase them from existence or history.
https://hum54-15.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/exhibits/show/russian_dacha/joseph-stalin-s-dacha--the-ric
I also find it hilarious that communists will preach socialism to those who reside in capitalist countries, completely neglecting that converting to Stalin or China type socialism will make the average American poorer because at least 60% of Americans actually own their own property, the land is not leased. So power to the minority 40% or 2.2% making less than $10 per day? The revolution surely will be great for the majority!
I am not saying there aren’t things to fix, I just find the communists and socialists arguing with such passion and zeal and sophistry to be inherently disingenuous because the facts show that they’re only interested in enriching themselves, so they mobilize people instead of armies to achieve that goal.
Wealth per citizen by country, fyi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
Most people just want to be left alone and socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone. They say there is no private property in socialism but really you become the property.
Wanting to be "left alone" is more a consequence of the alienation caused by the Capitalist system, humans are very social animals. No idea what you mean by "becoming the property," that doesn't make any sense.
what is your definition of socialism and what makes you say "you become the property"?
Socialism has been tried many times in all forms but pure unregulated capitalism hasn't yet.
I wish I had the confidence to just say whatever shit I pulled out of thin air like that
It's a well known opinion in McCartney-Lennonism.
socialism has had huge positive impacts where it's been tried and massive negative consequences when it's been replaced with capitalism.
what's your evidence that "pure unregulated capitalism" is worth trying? glassing the entire surface of the earth with nuclear weapons hasn't been tried yet either but that doesn't make it a good idea.
It has, actually. Got overrun by a bunch of bears
Every single form of socialism has been tried?
Even Christian anarchism? Even Posadism? Even Queer anarchism?
Also, your answer is anarcho-capitalism?
