• Tavarin
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    There’s also no direct democracies either, so what?

      • Tavarin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I’m asking what your point is, or are you incapable of reading more than 6 words in a reply?

        • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          My point is:

          "Shit like this is why I don’t get (some of) the LGBTQ community’s fascination with communism and tankies.

          They have proven themselves just as anti-LGBTQ as the fascists."

          • Tavarin
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Okay, and what does that have to do with fact China and the USSR aren’t/weren’t communist being convenient?

            • SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I just think it’s convenient that communism gets to live in this little “no true scotsman/communism” bubble where if a state adopts communism and fails, it immedietly gets labeled as “not a real communist” state.

              That way, instead of looking if there’s something wrong with communism itself, it can get written off as the fault of the state attempting it.

              • hypelightfly@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                It’s not really convenient. It’s that communism is an ideal that’s literally impossible for large groups of humans to obtain.

                There has never been a communist state because there can’t be with people involved.

              • Tavarin
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                state adopts communism

                But no state has actually adopted communism. Communism as a basis of an economy requires communal ownership of all goods; not state ownership, but communal. Which country has ever done that?

                • goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  The state can also control everything. In which case, China, Vietnam and Cuba.

                  • Tavarin
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    That’s authoritarianism, not communism.

                  • Tavarin
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    None of them even tried to adopt communism, they all tried to adopt authoritarianism, using the word communism to garner support to get elected. Communism is a class-free society with communal ownership, no country has ever tried to be that.