• JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        It’s very frustrating to me to see people say things like “socialism/communism always ends in a dictatorship” while ignoring that capitalism tends towards oligarchies and monopolies. I’m glad to see someone else pointing out that “capitalism only works on a small scale.”

      • Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        2 days ago

        Capitalism only works on a small scale. The second society gets bigger, you require a state with militaristic presence to keep corporations in line.

        Wrong. Half of europe relied so much on american protection that they had barely any military spending. Germany at the forefront, we only have ammunition for like 2 days of combat. So ye, that’s nonsense.

        No matter which country you pick, large ones like the USA or Russia, all of them have developed into a divided oligarchy of “haves” and “have nots”. […]

        The US has been democratic for a major part of their existence. There were up and downs, sure, but it was largely a democratic system. So have many other big capitalistic countries by the way.

        Russia, while being capitalist, is an authoritarian system - I’m pretty sure that would’ve also happened if they were communist. But the oil money they got from the west probably tasted too good.

        but in the end capitalism is a failed ideology that will never work on a large scale without completely surpressing the market and brutally regulating any sign of market dominance of a few corporations.

        Uuuuh, did you use AI to write this? Because it makes no sense. Personally, I wouldn’t mind some regulations. Not sure what your point is here.

        • ZkhqrD5o@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I mirrored your comment, because I think it works backwards. From the way it sounds to me, you started with your conclusion/opinion and searched for proof of why it is right. Real socialism and the Soviet unions were deeply, deeply flawed systems from the start, but only because some implementations failed, due to essentially the same problems as capitalism, does not mean the idea as a whole is rubbish. If you read the communist manifesto and “the capital” from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, you will read a brilliant critique of our modern contemporary system. There are some very fine ideas in there, and I think it’s dangerous to discard another perspective because some implementations have failed. The USA are the living proof of how two radically different systems can suffer from the same problems and collapse because of them. Why is it such a culture war against some genuinely very fine points that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels have made over a hundred years ago, which are relevant to this day?

          Edit: typo. I apologise for forgetting about Friedrich Engels.

        • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          America had a mostly centrally planned economy during WWII, you couldn’t even get more rations without giving your previous packaging back to be recycled.

          this is part of why america became so wealthy, along with imperialism.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      This is generally wrong, though. Communist countries have dramatically democratized society, it works better at large scale if we are speaking of Marxian Communism because that’s the Marxist reason for Communism to begin with. Competition centralizes, so in the future it must be publicly owned and planned. This is the basis of Scientific Socialism, primitive Communism is not the same as the post-Socialist Communism, which must be large-scale as production increases in complexity.

      Pol Pot wasn’t even a Communist.

        • Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Competition does the exact opposite of centralization. That’s why I can buy most goods from completely different vendors that differ in price and quality.

          Competitions have winners, and in this case it means the competition goes out of business and dies, leaving you with a near monopoly or outright monopoly.

          That power then gets used to

          • lobby (bribe) the government to raise barriers to entry to prevent new competitors
          • buy out new competitors
          • intentionally price everything lower than competitors, at a loss, to kill competitors in a war of attrition that they can’t possibly outlast

          And that’s even assuming there’s any competition at all, which often isn’t the case with certain things like healthcare, internet, electricity, etc.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          The USSR, PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc are more democratic than theie previous systems.

          Communism still works, just because the Soviet Union isn’t here doesn’t mean everything is a failure.

          Competition forces centralization and monopolies over time due to increasinly complex production practices that raise the barrier to entry. It’s unavoidable.

          Pol Pot denounced Marxism and focused on an odd agrarian system, and was backed by the CIA.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              2 days ago

              Read Soviet Democracy, as well as read up on the government structures of the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, etc. They are democratic.

              The PRC is more successful today than the USSR was, and is Socialist. Calling countries in the Global South “shitholes” is wildly chauvanist, along with your unsourced claims about them.

              You didn’t really go against competition causing centralization. Even further than companies, there are joinings of companies under single megacorps that share supply chains and interwork.

              Pol Pot did not “follow Communist ideals,” though. Moreover, if someone makes a clear deviation from Communism and denounces Marxism, why on Earth include it as a detractor other than clear bad-faith?

              Sure, the Cold War was complicated, but the US was never fighting for Communism and neither was Pol Pot. The Khmer Rouge never actually read Marx, and mostly declared any Communist sympathies out of aesthetics and geopolitical support than genuine support for Communism, and the US supported them.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              Soviet Democracy

              Here’s a well-sourced post on China’s democracy, but really, read their constitution and government structure if you want more.

              Cuba was under a fascist slaver before Socialism, and now has a democracy.

              The PRC is Socialist, and has one of the largest and most rapidly growing economies in the world, I don’t think you need a source for this.

              As for competition and centralization, where do you think the megacorps came from? We are more centralized now than ever before.

              Pol Pot and the CIA, alternatively Blowback lists their sources and they went over it in Season 5.

    • Independently of who I side with, I am blocking this community because of the stifling of Realitaetsverlust’s comments.

      edit: was baffled by the stifling and just researched and learned about Lemmy.ml

      it all makes sense now. It is a Socialist Communist instance that censors those not aligned with them. Political leanings don’t bother me, but the censorship does so I will be avoiding anything Lemmy.ml in the future. They of course have a right to run their instance how they wish. peace out

      • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The Schrödinger’s sarcasm edit 🙄

        uyghurs

        The US propaganda machine’s “Uyghur genocide” psyop has been debunked six ways to Sunday already. [1] [2]

        .

        tibetans

        I’m pretty sure virtually all of the Tibetan people are happy to no longer be suffering under theocratic feudalism. Happy to no longer be illiterate serfs and slaves, suffering depredation under a god-king. I doubt many of them are sad that CIA asset Dalai “suck my tongue” Lama is in exile. [1] [2]

        • thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          By debunked you mean the leader accused of genocide denied it and then denied journalists and observers access! Your propaganda is too stupid to believe.

          The tibetens were beaten into submission and shown that they will be disapeared for even suggesting that god-king Xi might be wrong.

      • Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        3 days ago

        Not sure what you’re trying to say. Uyghurs are systematically eradicated and tibet is controlled by china since their invasion in the 1950s. Not exactly speaking in favor of communism.

        So, if you’d like to expand on your point, I might be able to discuss this further.