Today's secret word is... : memes

[–] Pman@lemmy.org 6 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Sounds like someone doesn't know about people like Lavrentiy Beria

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 4 points 50 minutes ago

The pedophilic elite that was gotten rid of by communists?

[–] Wrufieotnak@feddit.org -3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

And Stalin... At least if you think impregnating a 14 year old (Lidia Pereprygina) makes you a pedophile.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 40 minutes ago

It should be noted that the claims of Stalin impregnating Pereprygina at 14 come from Simon Sebag Montefiore, who himself is not a historian, was not given access to the soviet archives (which is the starting point for modern soviet historiography), and who himself is in Epstein's black book.

It does seem plausible that Stalin may have fathered a child in Siberia with Lidia Pereprygina while in exile based on modern evidence, but no such evidence presently exists backing up when this may have happened. The fact that primary sources are practically nonexistent and that the only one pushing this narrative of Stalin being a pedophile wrap back around to Montefiore's claims (themselves based largely on hearsay for the more absurd claims), points to it likely being propaganda and Red Scare fearmongering.

[–] Pman@lemmy.org 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Yeah, the Soviet union is not a place I would have liked to live in during its time in power, and from stories I've gotten from family that fled during Stalin's time it is a safe assumption to have as those who remained did not have a great time during the Holodomor.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 4 points 55 minutes ago

You should of had to live there in pre-Soviet times. Or post Soviet times for that matter

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Beria was executed once he was found guilty. Even his position couldn't save him. Meanwhile, in the west, wealthy capitalists go with slaps on the wrist for making a pedophile island. That's not even getting into the fact that Montefiore, an anti-communist propagandist that is in the Epstein files and hasn't had access to the soviet archives is the one major source of Beria's crimes, either way he was found guilty and executed once that was done.

[–] Pman@lemmy.org -2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

What was the context of his arrest and charges? And as someone else pointed out Stalin also did that sort of thing at least once with a 14 year old girl, and he never saw any consequences for that action or those of his Anti-Semitic policies, the 5year plan, or the Homodomor. The communist parties that completely control a country are like any other one party state, be they Bathists, Communists, Fascists, or other they support policies that get fear and loyalty towards their great leader.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 30 minutes ago* (last edited 24 minutes ago)

As for Beria, the context was in Khrushchev's "secret speech" and denunciations of Stalin and the Stalon administration. Much of this has been confirmed false, see Stalin: History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo.

Regarding the allegations around Stalin, I'll direct you to my response to their comment. Essentially, these claims about Stalin's supposed pedophilia come from the very same Montefiore. Secondly, Stalin did not have anti-semitic policies (anti-semitism was punishable by death in the USSR). I don't know why five year plans are a bad thing to you, having goals for a state to focus on is common practice in socialist countries, China is beginning their 15th Five Year Plan.

As for the famine in the 1930s, Stalin wasn't punished because he did not intend to do so, and the soviets did what they could to prevent and alleviate it once it had started. The idea of an intentional famine is simply fringe among contemporary historians, same with claims of white genocide in South Africa. For example, serious bourgeois academic sources tend to say it was a failure of planning, rather than genocide. For instance, Mark Tauger wrote:

[data] indicate that the famine was real, the result of a failure of economic policy, of the 'revolution from above,' rather than of a 'successful' nationality policy against Ukrainians or other ethnic groups.

Tauger believes it was a failure of economic policy, not an intentional attack on ethnic Ukrainians. The 1930s famine was a combination of drought, flooding, and mismanagement. Further, the Kulaks, wealthy bourgeois farmers, magnified matters by killing their own crops in the midst of a famine rather than letting the Red Army collectivize them. The Politburo was also kept in the dark about how bad the famine was getting:

From: Archive of the President of the Russian Federation. Fond 3, Record Series 40, File 80, Page 58.

Excerpt from the protocol number of the meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party (Bolsheviks) “Regarding Measures to Prevent Failure to Sow in Ukraine, March 16th, 1932.

The Political Bureau believes that shortage of seed grain in Ukraine is many times worse than what was described in comrade Kosior’s telegram; therefore, the Political Bureau recommends the Central Committee of the Communist party of Ukraine to take all measures within its reach to prevent the threat of failing to sow [field crops] in Ukraine.

Signed: Secretary of the Central Committee – J. STALIN

Letter to Joseph Stalin from Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine regarding the course and the perspectives of the sowing campaign in Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

There are also isolated cases of starvation, and even whole villages [starving]; however, this is only the result of bungling on the local level, deviations [from the party line], especially in regard of kolkhozes. All rumours about “famine” in Ukraine must be unconditionally rejected. The crucial help that was provided for Ukraine will give us the opportunity to eradicate all such outbreaks [of starvation].

Letter from Joseph Stalin to Stanislaw Kosior, 1st secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine, April 26th, 1932.

Comrade Kosior!

You must read attached summaries. Judging by this information, it looks like the Soviet authority has ceased to exist in some areas of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Can this be true? Is the situation invillages in Ukraine this bad? Where are the operatives of the OGPU [Joint Main Political Directorate], what are they doing?

Could you verify this information and inform the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist party about taken measures.

Sincerely, J. Stalin

Muggeridge and Jones reported on the famine. Völkischer Beobachter reported on it as intentional, and then spread the story around further.

Returning to your claims:

The communist parties that completely control a country are like any other one party state, be they Bathists, Communists, Fascists, or other they support policies that get fear and loyalty towards their great leader.

Communists are entirely different from fascists, because they establish socialist democracy and pro-social policies, while fascists do not.

The soviet union wasn't run by a dictator. To the contrary, the USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.

When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.

The soviet union did not "bleed dry" their member-states, or anyone else. As a socialist economy, it did not need to run on the same mechanisms of capital expansion the west does. Instead, all socialist countries saw dramatic growth over time, and rising key life metrics.

[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

It is insane to think that communism is somehow the fix to corruption...

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

It is insane to think that a system based on equality and worker ownership isn't the fix to corruption.

[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Corruption is not a system issue, it is a human issue.

Some systems can be less vulnerable than others, but to just throw "communism" as a solution is just as stupid as throwing "free market" as a solution.

"The free market will make it impossible to maintain profit if it goes against the peoples' interests!"

You are doing the same thing but with communism.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 4 points 52 minutes ago

Corruption is not a system issue, it is a human issue.

Cite your sources

Some systems can be less vulnerable than others

So it is a system issue

[–] orc_princess@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 hours ago

The difference is that proletarian democracies address these issues collectively instead of rewarding private individuals and companies for their corruption. No one is saying corruption will disappear overnight if we press the communism button, that's not how it works, but if we stop rewarding corruption and we start imprisoning people instead of fining them and we restructure how elections work then we're already addressing the biggest systemic flaws that make corruption this rampant.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 hours ago

How?

[–] bountygiver@lemmy.ml 13 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

pretty sure revolution or guillotine comes first

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 hours ago

Revolution is currently necessary for socialism which is necessary for communism. Meme is most likely speaking about communism as ideology, not system.

[–] reagansrottencorpse@lemmy.ml 17 points 21 hours ago

I heard my son tell another kid he was playing video games with that "he actually supports communism". I must be doing something right.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago

☭

[–] Una@europe.pub 12 points 1 day ago

nomnomnom :3

[–] HoneyMustardGas@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Imagine there was an episode like this. Smh.

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 3 points 23 hours ago

i bet ruebens would have loved it. lol

[+] harcesz@szmer.info -7 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 9 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You definitely are tapped in and fully aware of the real truth so why dont you educate some of us plebians about communist governments/leaders that clung to power despite being hated in their country. (being hated by gusanos and crackkkers doesn't count)

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 7 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

His response and my response to it(was sent in DMS however he clearly would have shared if he was not banned and I want to share my response after taking the time to write it for any interested third parties):

“Thats a lazy eristic trick…”

No, it wasn’t a “trick.” It was sarcasm in response to your original claim, which was itself a lazy, absolutist statement. You opened with a blanket assertion about communist systems being inherently unaccountable and impossible to remove. I responded by mocking that certainty. If you read that as some kind of debate tactic instead of what it was, that’s on you.

“Not a dynastic absolute monarchy…”

If you mean the DPRK, you’re ignoring basic context. The Korean War never formally ended, and the US still routinely conducts large-scale military exercises right off its border. This comes after a war where US bombing killed an estimated 15% of the population (majority civilian casualties with estimates as high as 70%) and destroyed most infrastructure.

The Korean War casualty estimates

Given that history, it is not surprising they emphasize continuity and stability tied to the legacy of Kim Il-sung. You don’t have to support it, but pretending it developed in isolation from that pressure is not serious.

“…another one had to invade to stop the genocide…”

Calling the Khmer Rouge(who I assume this is about) “communist” is not just inaccurate, it’s indefensible. They were anti-Marxist in practice, hostile to Vietnam, and built on extreme agrarian nationalism that rejected industrial society entirely. Vietnam, an actual socialist state, is the one that overthrew them.

They also continued receiving international backing, including from the US, after their removal (the US of course being known supporters of communism (this is sarcasm not a trick)). US support for Khmer Rouge after 1979

Reducing that to “communism gone wrong” is historical nonsense. It ignores both ideology and material alliances.

“…the deified leader…”

This is recycled Cold War propaganda. Even the CIA’s own internal analysis acknowledged that the USSR operated through collective leadership structures rather than a simple one-man dictatorship.

“Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership” (CIA memo)

You’re repeating a narrative that intelligence agencies themselves recognized as misleading. That kind of uncritical repetition is exactly what you would expect from someone leaning on nationalist framing instead of engaging with actual historical material.

“For all I know you’re some privileged western kid…”

I’m a born and raised rural Chinese minority. I’ve done well for myself, but I’m far from rich. What I have experienced directly is my village going from abject poverty to modern living conditions in under 25 years, largely through state-led development grounded in communist principles.

Meanwhile, you’re speaking from Poland, where the political trajectory has been steadily rightward, with increasing hostility toward left-wing movements. Your argument reads less like analysis and more like it’s shaped by that environment, repeating familiar nationalist narratives instead of engaging seriously with the material history.

“…This resulted in shock doctrine… privatization… unemployment… poverty…”

Yes, shock therapy did all of that. And attributing it to communism is a fundamental error.

Shock therapy was the dismantling of socialist systems and the rapid imposition of neoliberal capitalism. The collapse in industry, mass unemployment, and social breakdown across Eastern Europe were consequences of that transition, not of socialism “clinging to power.”

Blaming communism for the outcomes of policies imposed after it was removed is incoherent and frankly idiotic. It’s also consistent with a nationalist retelling of events that flattens complex internal crises into a simple narrative while ignoring the role of external pressure and the economic restructuring that followed.

As for the crackdowns, they occurred in the context of systemic instability, political fragmentation, and mounting external pressures. Reducing that to a one-dimensional story about “communists vs workers” while ignoring what replaced that system is not a serious reading of history.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

He responded again (copy paste over screen grab due to length):

original claim, which was itself a lazy, absolutist statement. You opened with a blanket assertion about communist systems being inherently unaccountable and impossible to remove.

Yeah, never did communism bring to power a impossible to remove group or person focused on increasing their power and blocking any chance of keeping them in check. Unheard off.

Where do I state that communist systems are in general impossible to remove? I live in a country where it was removed without violence (other then that of the regime against workers).

I responded by mocking that certainty. If you read that as some kind of debate tactic instead of what it was, that’s on you.

Yeeeeah, right.

If you mean the DPRK, you’re ignoring basic context.

Yeah I do and no I dont. 3 generations of absulute rulers from a single family is not communism its monarchy.

This comes after a war where US bombing killed an estimated 15% of the population (majority civilian casualties with estimates as high as 70%) and destroyed most infrastructure. Given that history, it is not surprising they emphasize continuity and stability tied to the legacy of Kim Il-sung. You don’t have to support it, but pretending it developed in isolation from that pressure is not serious.

WW2 killed 20% of my coutrys population, and whatever industry was not destroyed during got taken away after. We had building up might of NATO combined tank armies some 300km from oir borders, and '60 US plans to drop 20-50 nukes on my city alone in case of war. Still a stalinist and than socrealist government with a considerably normal succesion of power (other than one leader being killed in Moscow).
How come did we not develop a monarchy with such a similar context?

Calling the Khmer Rouge(who I assume this is about) “communist” is not just inaccurate, it’s indefensible

Oh is it? 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?

built on extreme agrarian nationalism that rejected industrial society entirely.

Well our communist party organised a state sanctioned antysemitic pogrom. Go figure. Its just like calling onself a communist might not be enought sometimes.

Vietnam, an actual socialist state, is the one that overthrew them.

Exactly what I was referring to, but thanks for pointing it out, I feel educated comrade.

US support for Khmer Rouge after 1979

Is US supporting a fanatical regime to subvert another state anything surprising to you? Why do you assume it would be for me? Amd what does that have to the original point?

This is recycled Cold War propaganda.

Mate, thats a living memmory of my family, same as millions around as. You have to be a westerner not to know or understand that. It was criticised by the party itself. Thats also propaganda?

Even the CIA’s

Ddnt know you trust CIA reports. But that only works, when absigle one supports your point I guess?

I’m a born and raised rural Chinese minority. I’ve done well for myself, but I’m far from rich.

Must have been very well, Ive been to China and I dont see any of the language patters of people from the private sector. That doesent sound like state educated english. Also what time is it at your place? Pretty late id say.

What I have experienced directly is my village going from abject poverty to modern living conditions in under 25 years, largely through state-led development grounded in communist principles.

Isnt last 25 years more like state capitalism? Again Ive been to china i do understand and apriciate the scale of changes, but it is a market economy.

Meanwhile, you’re speaking from Poland, where the political trajectory has been steadily rightward, with increasing hostility toward left-wing movements.

It has been bordering of fascism since 20 years. My house was stormed by fascist militants attempting to set it on fire, but do tell me more.

Your argument reads less like analysis and more like it’s shaped by that environment, repeating familiar nationalist narratives instead of engaging seriously with the material history.

Yeah, no.

Yes, shock therapy did all of that. And attributing it to communism is a fundamental error.

No mate. I was very clear. Not communism. Elites of whatever came out of supposed communism.

Blaming communism for the outcomes of policies imposed after it was removed is incoherent and frankly idiotic.

Yeah, and your the one making that point to have something to foght agsinst.

As for the crackdowns, they occurred in the context of systemic instability, political fragmentation, and mounting external pressures. Reducing that to a one-dimensional story about “communists vs workers”

They sent tanks on to striking workers.

while ignoring what replaced that system is not a serious reading of history.

They did that before knowing and participating in the system change.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

To which I replied:

"Where do I state that communist systems are in general impossible to remove?"

Your opening sarcasm was a universal claim. Now you narrow it after being pressed typical.

"3 generations of absolute rulers from a single family is not communism its monarchy."

Labeling is not analysis. The DPRK's political form developed under total war, permanent sanctions, and existential threat. 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 to one that retained industrial capacity and was supported by multiple blocs post war. Also they are elected and rule collectively through a Congress but I'm sure you'll dismiss that out of hand.

"How come did we not develop a monarchy with such a similar context?"

Because historical development is not mechanical. Different class compositions, different party formations, different leadership decisions under different concrete conditions produce different outcomes. Poland was not under siege from the Nazis for decades after the end of ww2 they received a huge amount of funds for rebuilding and integration instead first from the soviets then the EU. Are you really this uneducated?

"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. They were not a deviation, they were its negation. By your logic, any group that uses socialist language while acting against socialist practice counts as "communist." That renders the term meaningless. The Nazis called themselves socialists too. Are you applying that standard consistently? 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.

"Well our communist party organised a state sanctioned antysemitic pogrom. Go figure."

Nationalist currents existed in Poland long before 1945. The post-war state inherited those contradictions. That the party later criticized and corrected these errors is a feature of socialist self-critique, not a refutation of the system. Twisting this history while ignoring your own country's record of invading Czechoslovakia, occupying Western Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine is ironic.

"Exactly what I was referring to, but thanks for pointing it out, I feel educated comrade."

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

"Is US supporting a fanatical regime to subvert another state anything surprising to you? Why do you assume it would be for me? And what does that have to the original point?"

It has everything to do with the original point. You present political outcomes as if they emerge in a vacuum. They do not. When the leading imperial power funds, arms, and legitimizes opposition movements, that says something about those movements as I said in the original comment if the largest anti-communist force on earth is funding your anti-communist extremists calling them communist is idiotic.

"Mate, thats a living memory of my family, same as millions around as. You have to be a westerner not to know or understand that. It was criticised by the party itself. Thats also propaganda?"

"Living memory" does not replace structural analysis. American families have living memories of WMDs in Iraq too. That does not make the invasion justified.

"Didnt know you trust CIA reports."

I do not trust the CIA. I noted that when an institution dedicated to undermining socialism internally acknowledges facts that contradict its own propaganda, those facts carry weight. Is that really so hard for you to understand.

"Must have been very well, Ive been to China and I dont see any of the language patters of people from the private sector. That doesent sound like state educated english. Also what time is it at your place? Pretty late id say."

Judging someone's background by their English is a lazy trope. I learned English to engage with friends internationally. My village's transformation from poverty to modern infrastructure under collective planning is not a performance for your approval. You racist fuck. Also it was around 8am I was on the train to work not that you know anything about labour.

"Isnt last 25 years more like state capitalism? Again Ive been to china i do understand and apriciate the scale of changes, but it is a market economy."

Markets are a mechanism, not a mode of production. China's system maintains public ownership of the commanding heights, party leadership (reproduced through whole process people's democracy and mass line, there's a reason approval even according to places like Harvard is 90+%) over capital, and development oriented toward social need. The eradication of extreme poverty for hundreds of millions is not a capitalist achievement. It is the result of socialist planning adapting to concrete conditions.

"It has been bordering of fascism since 20 years. My house was stormed by fascist militants attempting to set it on fire, but do tell me more."

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

"No mate. I was very clear. Not communism. Elites of whatever came out of supposed communism."

Then you have abandoned your original claim. You started with "communism produces unaccountable systems." Now you say the problem is elites after socialism was dismantled. Those are opposite arguments. The latter describes the outcome of externally imposed privatization, not the prior system's logic.

"They did that before knowing and participating in the system change."

They participated under conditions of systemic collapse, foreign pressure, and a coordinated ideological offensive. That is not free choice, that is crisis management under duress.

One last thing: I wasn't going to ask but after your comment about my English, I have to ask, are you a teenager? The arrogance paired with the historical gaps feels like it. But if you are an adult, perhaps it is time to read more than western media and engage with materialist analysis before debating.

If I'm taking the time to refute waves of bullshit using it to help educate anyone interested makes it less annoying.

[–] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

He has again responded with another round of horseshit:

Your opening sarcasm was a universal claim. Now you narrow it after being pressed typical.

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 3 points 3 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.

[–] rzadkie@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

it's shaped by that environment, repeating familiar nationalist narratives instead of engaging seriously with the material history.

This. From my experience our commies neglected educating the masses in even basic marxsim, to such a degree that it has done imo more damage than early liberal brainwashing of 90's. No general strike during shock therapy, Balcerowicz running unoppossed, nothing. In fact the last wave of large protests was in 1988.

Memes

Rules: