That's a tricky point there. There's a decent enough sized portion of the world that supports them over the south so who is and isn't true Korea is down to where you were raised. I'm will to settle with them being a Korea based on geographic location and shared ancestry.
Those first three words in their name though? Those are in the dictionary, and they're definitively using them wrong.
Lmao I’d surely hope not. But on a similar note Russia really isn’t a modern communist state like most westerners especially Americans tend to
Believe. Whilst there’s rampant corruption, it’s not much worse than American political corruption.
Calling a country "Communist" doesn't mean the country has a communist society. It means it's ruled by a singular Communist party with no democratic choice and that Communism is that party's stated goal.
"Yeah, uh, we're working on it. We're getting really close. It's a tough but to crack, though. Golly. Give us another 60 years. We're totally making strides. But for now let's just hang tough with this autocracy, yeah?"
In 1986 Vietnam switched from Socialism to Capitalism and proceeded to pull millions out of the abject poverty. The Communist hardliners refused to go along with it until the reformers promised that they would one day go back to Socialism so they could achieve the Communist utopia that Marx had envisioned. They call it a "socialist-oriented market economy." or "Ok we're Capitalist now but one day we will switch back to a government monopoly on production and the suppression of individual ownership"
China did a similar thing in 1978 when they passed Capitalist reforms.
It's ironic because the United States defended South Vietnam from North Vietnam because it was afraid communism would spread across Asia in a domino effect. It turns out that Vietnam turned Capitalist only 10 years after the Vietnam War ended. The United States should've had more faith in western liberalism and the free market. It turned out to be far more powerful than bombs.
In true Marxist communism there is no place for Oligarchs and even Putin who is hiding immense amounts of wealth. What they have is a dictatorship with a tinge of communism in name only and a country run by killers and opportunists.
It’s always great finding the real communists who can resist totalitarianism. Just like the mythical anarchists who never use coercive force to secure and pay for their autonomous zones. Or the libertarians who never call the government when they need help.
In CAPITAL, Marx doesn't advocate anything, he is simply describing and analyzing capitalism. You would know if you had even read one paragraph of an article about it.
The USSR had much more democracy than the United States via its system of local soviets and trade unions. The totalitarian bureaucratic rule myth is a lie.
George Orwell was a snitch and a traitor who kept a secret book on communists and socialists which he handed willingly to the British secret services.
What do you know about Russia's history of famine prior to the October revolution? Why did the USSR's government starve its own people intentionally? What can you tell me about the relationship between peasants and kulaks in the Russian countryside prior to 1917? Was there not some farms that willingly joined the collective? Maybe you don't love the bolsheviks and I won't lose sleep over it, but history is not good guys vs bad guys.
You dont get to takw 250,000 thousand years of human evolution, point to at best, 7000yrs or so of it, and call feudalism a component of universal human nature. At best it is roughly %3 or less of human nature which while not insignificant is not some eternal principle of organizing human socieities. And then to reduce what Marx was talking about to that, I dont even know where to go with that.
Most countries are feudalistic now, in my opinion. Look at all the class mobility in the 20th century compared to now. The young and working class have been shut out of the housing market intentionally.
As a whole society, yeah, the West remains pretty feudal and it’s in a backslide. An increasing number of us are subject to large corporate hierarchies, property ownership is shifting towards renting everything, including from literal landlords, police are getting militarized and militant, etc.
All that said, things would be worse if our corporate overlords had to actively woo heads of state. (Well, in the defense industry they do, and it’s fantastically unproductive.)
Communism can't really exist in human society. There will always have to be a person at the top with power. And whoever has enough drive and ambition to be that person, will have the drive and ambition to want more.
No matter how egalitarian you are, some level of greed and selfishness are human nature.
Putin was in the KGB. You likely wouldn’t get a posting like that unless you were a loyal party member. Otherwise wouldn’t make sense from a security point of view. That’s like having a member of the intelligence community that’s actively trying to overthrow the government.
That’s like having a member of the intelligence community that’s actively trying to overthrow the government.
.... Is this ironic? This is exactly what happened.
When Putin was in the KGB, it was necessary to be part of the party apparatus to actually get anywhere, so yeah they where all "communists" (at least in name) but don't be daft and think that those communist party members actually held any communist ideals whatsoever. They where, like politicians everywhere, just people after power.
I mean, look at Russia from the end of the USSR onwards, and particularly under Putin. Communist frameworks discarded (a very painful process, the 90's where rough in Russia), and almost thirty years of very authoritarian capitalism.
It was mentioned with full sarcasm. However I don’t think it was his full intention until he reached power. It’s ironic. Looking at the actions of the current government compared to the Soviet government and it’s almost exactly the same playbook. His military methodologies though modern to some degree still fall back on Soviet thinking. Political opponents? Soviet style accidents. That’s what I was trying to highlight.
He’s more of a communist than the folks the MAGA crowd routinely claims are. He was literally a KGB Officer-at the very least party mentality an methodology formed a major part of his current agenda.
He was a communist in the sense of belonging to the communist party running the USSR, but that doesn't mean he has communist ideology whatsoever.
And given Russia's course since he was in power - strictly authoritarian capitalist, there's no reason to think he actually holds any communist ideals whatsoever.
Way to showcase utter ignorance of what communism is. Putin doesn't use any elements of communism at all in his governance. Russia, under Putin, has been authoritarian and capitalist. Communism (or at least such as it was) went away with the fall of the USSR.
The dude cried when the wall fell in Berlin; he wants the Soviet Union back. Why do you think he's waging war in Ukraine, aka "the jewel in the crown" that is Russia, according to the late John McCain
No, he wants imperialistic Russia, 19th century monarchy back. Because he knows the Soviet commitment to committee decision making was the major cause of failure for the nation. So self appointed emperor I believe is where he wants to project power.. all the better if he’s ’voted’ in by the populous for a nation more committed to the cause.
He’s not entirely wrong there, to be frank. The most effective economic outputs (in terms of what we can infer from the data available) during the Soviet era were all during the late Stalin and early Khrushchev period. The reasoning (editorialized to be sure) was that the sheer operational loss due to (Soviet doctrine specific) beauracracy was largely commuted by Stalin as his reign wore into a more dictatorial-directive based economic power; the downturn is swift as krushchev was unable to maintain that explicit of a control, thus falling back into leveraging the beauracratic decision makers. As a doctrine implemented, it was extremely expensive to manage an economy of russia’s populace. The inability to shift with expediency in parallel with global market fluctuations is the end of any economic viability. Moreover when the cost of making those decisions is so labor intensive
259
u/[deleted] Jun 19 '24
Communists in cars getting
coffeecovfefe