this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
1262 points (97.3% liked)

linuxmemes

30939 readers
1658 users here now

Hint: :q!


Sister communities:


Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack users for any reason. This includes using blanket terms, like "every user of thing".
  • Don't get baited into back-and-forth insults. We are not animals.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn, no politics, no trolling or ragebaiting.
  • Don't come looking for advice, this is not the right community.
  • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, <loves/tolerates/hates> systemd, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.
  • 5. πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ Language/язык/Sprache
  • This is primarily an English-speaking community. πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§πŸ‡¦πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡ΊπŸ‡Έ
  • Comments written in other languages are allowed.
  • The substance of a post should be comprehensible for people who only speak English.
  • Titles and post bodies written in other languages will be allowed, but only as long as the above rule is observed.
  • 6. (NEW!) Regarding public figuresWe all have our opinions, and certain public figures can be divisive. Keep in mind that this is a community for memes and light-hearted fun, not for airing grievances or leveling accusations.
  • Keep discussions polite and free of disparagement.
  • We are never in possession of all of the facts. Defamatory comments will not be tolerated.
  • Discussions that get too heated will be locked and offending comments removed.
  • Β 

    Please report posts and comments that break these rules!


    Important: never execute code or follow advice that you don't understand or can't verify, especially here. The word of the day is credibility. This is a meme community -- even the most helpful comments might just be shitposts that can damage your system. Be aware, be smart, don't remove France.

    founded 2 years ago
    MODERATORS
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    What, genuinely, is unpleasant to imagine about a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society?

    That attempts to implement it invariably lead to shit, apparently.

    [–] jmankman@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

    Do you know what most of the Communist countries that "invariably went to shit" had in common? One of the most powerful, red fearing countries in the world fucking with them relentlessly, despite the "fact" that "they would have failed if left to their own devices"

    [–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

    Yeah, that's not a valid argument. Red fearing countries shouldn't have been a problem if the ideology actually had been a good one. Communists were trying to spread the ideology just as much as others were trying to stop it.

    The whole idea just sucks donkey balls and you're having a weird nostalgia moment by proxy if you want to rewind the world back to it.

    [–] 20hzservers@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

    So when you see a group of kids building a sand castle together on the beach it's ok to just walk over and kick it over right?

    [–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

    That analogue is so off the mark that I don't what you're trying to say. Are you implying that communist countries were building their societies with absolute peace and non-communists started all the trouble?

    [–] 20hzservers@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

    Not in every case but you're the one painting with a broad brush not me.

    [–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

    That's not the theory, though. The initial claim was that it's unpleasant to think about. Regardless of your claim that it "invariably leads to shit," that doesn't answer the initial question.

    If the claim should truly have been that existing attempts at Communism are unpleasant to think about, rather than "Communism itself is unpleasant to think about," then it's just an issue with wording.

    [–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

    I think it's fair that what happens in real world affects how one thinks about a political theory.

    [–] Cowbee@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

    So then it's a wording issue, though it's more accurate to say that revolution itself invariably turns to shit.

    [–] 0x4E4F 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

    Not everywhere, Yugoslavia is a good example of things being implemented the right way. There is always room for improvement of course, things were far from perfect... and perfect is just such a strong word, the idea is not to be perfect, to always improve it.

    [–] fosforus@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

    Didn't that thing end pretty badly?

    [–] 0x4E4F 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

    Yes, there was a war, but there were a lot of factors that contributed to that, including the US medling in internal affairs. In general, up until the death of Tito, everything was pretty much OK. The turmoils began after his death.

    [–] force@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

    That's a bad example, because at that point Yugoslavia couldn't have existed without Tito – he was an extremely authoritarian figure that cracked down on any sort of controversial thought hard. Having an intelligent dictator as the unifying force isn't a particularly good strategy, and Yugoslavia was bound to fail without an authority forcing it to stay together. There were many human rights violations done to keep the peace and equality in the nation.

    Yugoslavia also wasn't exactly as "communist" as other communist countries, they allowed private ownership of property and business and relied a lot on surrounding capitalist countries to have a decent standard of living and economy.

    [–] 0x4E4F 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    That's a bad example, because at that point Yugoslavia couldn't have existed without Tito – he was an extremely authoritarian figure that cracked down on any sort of controversial thought hard.

    You obviously never lived in Yugoslavia. I have. It was nothing like that. Western media presented him like every other dictator there is out there, which couldn't be further from the truth. Benevolent dictator, yes, that one he might have been, but an iron fisted one that went after everyone that so much as whispered something he didn't like? No, that's just not true.

    Having an intelligent dictator as the unifying force isn't a particularly good strategy, and Yugoslavia was bound to fail without an authority forcing it to stay together.

    That might be true to an extent. Slovenia and Croatia didn't like the federation, especially Sloveina... and yes, they were kinda forced into the federation after WWII. I would agree that Slovenia might have been better off if she was allowed to leave the federation. She should never have been a part of the federation anyway.

    Croatia had a different problem. They wanted to be in the federation, but wanted to lead it. Tito had to balance. He was Croatian, so he had to put the capital in Serbia and pick most of the leading figures from the Serbs.

    You have to understand, these regions were always riddled with nationalst wars. This was a chance for everyone to live peacefully, compromises had to be made. And we did live peacefully... up to a point.

    Yugoslavia also wasn't exactly as "communist" as other communist countries, they allowed private ownership of property and business and relied a lot on surrounding capitalist countries to have a decent standard of living and economy.

    Yes, Yugoslavia was socialist, and that was also up to an extent (as mentioned, private ownership and other things).

    Though, the idea was to be completely autonomous. The relying on capitalist countries part was supposed to be a temporary solution. And things were heading in the right direction (more or less... not saying things couldn't have been done better), but tides shifted when Tito died and everything started falling appart. I could elaborate in more detail if you'd like, but I feel like it's enough for this comment.