Nah, you just assumed I'm going after communism in general, where I was making a point that communism can also give rise to pathological elites/leaders. I just hate the shallow fanatical/fanboy approach to ideology showcased here so often, whatever the tendency. If you'd went thought my old comments you'd find me going after anarchists or liberals just as well (fascism is not to be debated).

Labeling is not analysis. The DPRK’s political form developed under total war, permanent sanctions, and existential threat.

Is the country ruled by workers council or a dynasty of unquestionable leaders? Whatever you call it, it is not communism.

Poland faced pressure too, but the material base was not the same. You cannot compare a state flattened by carpet bombing followed by brutal sanctions

Followed by theft of the remaining industrial equipment, rejection of Marshall plan and German retributions and years of pillage by the Soviets,

to one that retained industrial capacity and was supported by multiple blocs post war.

Soviets were taking away enough food to bring one of the breadbasket countries of Europe to the edge of hunger multiple times over the next 40 years. At the hight of the protests in 70/80 workers welded trains fool of produce bound east to the tracks, as there was no food for them to eat. If you come at me with propaganda statistics which are broadly know to be absolutely fake please mind that this, again, is a lived experience of generations. The only ones able to question the supply issues were the ones with access to party stores.

Also they are elected and rule collectively through a Congress but I’m sure you’ll dismiss that out of hand.

Are there repercussions for questioning the leaders line? Would that encourage acceptance and freeze any other fractions/party lines? Could (at least theoretically) that influence their choices in the parliament? Can you at least consider that something might not be right, even tho it labels itself communist?

Different class compositions,

How different? Poland was mostly rural, mostly city population got wiped out, as well as some of the cities themselves.

different party formations, different leadership decisions under different concrete conditions produce different outcomes.

Yeah, you cited reasons that would make it even worse for Poland, so when countered you state it's because everything else is different. Right, great argument.

Poland was not under siege from the Nazis for decades after the end of ww2

No? I was pretty sure we were still next to the border with germany, where radical majority of the nazi administration went unpunished and was armed by US and then NATO for the very prepose of war, for which generations of Polish people were primed just as well. Might be just me tho.

they received a huge amount of funds for rebuilding and integration instead first from the soviets

LOL.

then the EU. Are you really this uneducated?

No, I was rised in the 80 and 90 and remember going hungry as an effect of the economy collapsed by communist and then shot in the head by liberals. Are you that ignorant? Also Poland joined UE in 2004, "communism" fell in 89/90. Thats ~25 years. How old are you again?

“Is it like something anti-communist and hostile to its society grew out of a originally communist/maoist party? Would that be exactly the point Im making and youre prettending not to see?”

No. The Khmer Rouge were repudiated by every existing socialist state.

Were they originally a part of the communist party?

By your logic, any group that uses socialist language while acting against socialist practice counts as “communist.”

Not exactly. My very point is that communist parties of systems might give rise to what you call deviations. Again that is exactly the point I was making original and you chose to ignore.

The Nazis called themselves socialists too.

DPRK is calling itself democratic and state capitalist regimes call themselves communist. Obviously I don't care for the self applied labels.

Maybe you are the type of McCarthyist idiot who would call the Nazis socialist but I hope not that’s low even for a polish nationalist like yourself.

Mate, you cant insult me however many times you attempt. You're an internet ignorant, not unlike a street drunk and your insults are just as touching.

Nationalist currents existed in Poland long before 1945.

Are you, again, attempting to teach me my own history? Was your point not being offended that someone might want to tell you what things are? How come you give yourself the right to do so, time and time again? You just think your a better human as you internalized some party line you little Eichmann?

The post-war state inherited those contradictions.

Yeah, that was over 20 years latter, and you are now justifying a antisemitic pogrom, without a word of critique for the fact it took place, and was organized by party members. Who primed you to be incapable of showing any humanity if any supposedly communist party might have done something evil?

That the party later criticized and corrected these errors is a feature of socialist self-critique, not a refutation of the system.

Ok, so did the same happen after Stalin, by any chance? And if so, would that again be my exact point made?

Twisting this history while ignoring your own country’s record of invading Czechoslovakia,

That was on Soviet order, so happens, but yeah, disgraceful.

occupying Western Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine is ironic.

I'm glad you accept Ukraine's right to self determination, I also think Russian invasion is an illegal and immoral act of imperialism. As was Poland's occupation of nowadays Lithuania, Belarus and Russia. Poland was a imperialist state, and a slaver one and bares the full responsibility for that. Stop assuming what I know or believe, you can just ask.

If Vietnam, a socialist state, overthrew the Khmer Rouge, then your example refutes your own claim.

My claim was communism can give rise to degenerate elite/rule. Same as democracy, as being an oligarch going around fucking children is not democracy, same as khmer's were not communist. They were degenerated, but rose from communist ranks. That. Is. My. Point. No idea or human is immune to corruption that comes with absolute power over others. You're trying to make my argument into something else to save your own point, against reality.

“Living memory” does not replace structural analysis.

Is this structural analysis by any chance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Cult_of_Personality_and_Its_Consequences Or do you put a CIA report over that? Would this prove the point of my particular example being determined a "deviation" by the party?

I noted that when an institution dedicated to undermining socialism internally acknowledges

Correct me if I'm wrong, in a single report, you haven't even read?

My village’s transformation from poverty to modern infrastructure under collective planning is not a performance for your approval.

Ah, by my entire country's is for you? Arogant fuck.

Also it was around 8am I was on the train to work

Your last posts would be at; 18:42 8:21 4:43 3:46 You're one stubborn commenter, I'll give you that. But isn't lemmy.ml blocked in China? Hope you're not an anti-social on a VPN? That would be against party line, I'm sure.

Markets are a mechanism,

Yeah, and very much not communism. Market socialism, maybe?

Still; theres oligarchs, and nepo babies citicised and even at times punished by the party. Again a proof that my argument was right and such issues can arise under what you claim to be communism.

So is it possible these fascists in power have colored your view of things just like McCarthyism did for Americans?

At best as much as it is that youre so blinded by your ideology you ignore anything that doesent suit it 1:1.

Then you have abandoned your original claim. You started with “communism produces unaccountable systems.”

No, that's what you read assuming I'm coming from an anti-communist position, because, you are an ignorant fuck who only accepts a singular party line as the only source of truth.

Those are opposite arguments.

You might have missed a part of the argument, feel free to re-read it, as it is on how the communist power gave rise to an elite acting against the people. Stil the main point of my comment.

That is not free choice, that is crisis management under duress.

Which justifies anything from Korea to Poland. Great. When and where there was a time without such pressures? Are you telling me communism will always be shaped by capitalists?

I have to ask, are you a teenager?

No.

The arrogance paired with the historical gaps (...) and engage with materialist analysis before debating.

Gaps? It would seem to be more like not sharing you excuses, while you seem to be ignoring broadly know party analysis (On the Cult of Personality and Its Consequences) and place a CIA report over it? Get a grip.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 hours ago

I responded again

A brief list of issues:

You completely reversed the historical record on Czechoslovakia: the Soviet Union proposed a collective security pact with Poland and Britain in 1938 to defend Czechoslovakia against Nazi expansion; Poland refused, then joined the Nazis in annexing Zaolzie; Britain chose appeasement at Munich. Claiming the Soviets “ordered” Poland to invade is not merely incorrect, it is the precise opposite of what occurred.

You equate Russia’s defensive reaction to NATO encirclement, the 2014 western-backed coup in Kyiv, and eight years of war in Donbas with interwar Poland’s opportunistic seizure of territory in Western Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. One is a response to imperial threat and the protection of persecuted populations; the other was expansion into neighbors weakened by revolutionary disarray. Conflating them ignores material context and serves imperial narratives.

You dismiss Comecon as “theft” while ignoring the Marshall Plan as an instrument of imperial subordination, measuring socialist solidarity by capitalist standards. You conflate Khrushchev’s public, factional speech attacking Stalin’s supporters with an internal CIA memo never meant for public consumption. One was intra-party maneuvering weaponized by imperialism; the other was an admission against interest by an ideological enemy. They are not methodologically equivalent.

You ignore the material difference between the DPRK, flattened by carpet bombing, under permanent sanctions and existential threat, and Poland, which retained industrial capacity and operated within a supportive bloc. Scale and concrete conditions matter. False equivalence is not analysis. You reduce the complex reality of the Donbas conflict, the Minsk agreements, and the repression of Russian-speaking populations to a simple moral label of “imperialism” while ignoring the chain of causation and eight years of prior warfare.

You claim EU integration began in 2004, ignoring decades of trade conditioning, political alignment, and structural adjustment that prepared Poland for subordination to EU capital. You treat your lived experience of shortages as total analysis while refusing to consider war destruction, population loss, industrial prioritization, and counter-revolutionary sabotage as contributing factors. Anecdote is not structural analysis.

You demand socialism achieve perfection under siege, sanctions, and threat while applying no such standard to capitalism’s inherent crises, inequalities, and imperial violence. You confuse essence with deviation: capitalism produces exploitation as its logic; socialism produces it as a contradiction to be corrected. You present correction as proof of failure. You treat power as abstract rather than class power, reflecting liberal individualism rather than materialist analysis.

You impose idealist definitions of “real communism” from outside, then dismiss actually-existing socialist states that do not fit your abstraction. This is not method; it is arbitrariness. You shift goalposts: first claiming “communism produces unaccountable systems,” then narrowing to “elites can emerge,” which is a tautology applicable to any system. You engage in circular reasoning: comparing incomparable cases, ignoring concrete conditions, then insisting the outcomes prove your premise.

You made racist remarks about my English, judging my background by language patterns, then dismissed my village’s transformation under collective planning as “performance.” This is imperial condescension. You stalked my posting times to insinuate I am not working or not Chinese. You accused me of using a VPN (I am, it is legal, and I have no issues with it).

You claim to reject “self-applied labels” while imposing your own external definitions, leaving you with no consistent method for analysis. You present the Khmer Rouge as evidence against communism despite their repudiation by every existing socialist state. This is intellectually dishonest. You use liberal moralizing to judge historical events without context, dismissing socialist self-critique as proof of system failure while ignoring capitalism’s systematic protection of oligarchs.

You argue that any deviation under socialism refutes the whole, while treating capitalism’s endemic crises as normal. This is bias, not analysis. You claim to have been “raised in the 80s and 90s” and remember hunger, then use that to dismiss structural analysis. Lived experience is valid (except you have none of the communist period); it is not total. Materialism requires examining the totality of conditions. You accuse me of arrogance while displaying profound historical gaps, logical fallacies, and personal attacks. Projection is not critique.

You refuse to engage dialectically: you cannot hold that socialism can correct itself (as with party criticism of past errors) and that such correction proves failure. Both cannot be true. You demand I “share excuses” while ignoring broadly known party analyses and declassified admissions from ideological enemies. You select evidence that fits your narrative and dismiss the rest. You claim not to be anti-communist while functioning as one: judging socialism by standards never applied to capitalism, dismissing actually-existing socialist achievements, and amplifying imperial narratives. Intent does not negate effect.