this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
155 points (94.3% liked)

politics

25143 readers
2198 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That isn't really true, nor accurate.

Communism, chiefly, is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. A world republic where from each's ability, each's needs are satisfied. You cannot separate that from the concept of government.

"Authoritarian" and "Libertarian" are vibes-based labels. Capitalism is inherently a system where the majority do not hold power, yet by your definition it could be "libertarian" or "authoritarian."

Horseshoe theory again is used purely to equate the left with the far-right and uphold the liberal status quo as a "sensible meeting point" and legitimize the violent system.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I’m not familiar with the term vibes-based regarding social legislation. An example of social legislation in a communist nation would be law against homosexuality in Russia. One is independent of the other. Capitalism is also a system of economy, devoid of social legislation inference.

Are you familial with the Nolan Chart? It displays economic legislation on the X axis and social legislation on the Y axis, defining their clear independence. I find it to be helpful in seeing the difference in restrictions to social freedom independent of economic support (or lack thereof).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I am loathe to defend Marxist leninist like cowbee. I think it is important to point out that Russia most certainly is not now communist. Nor has it ever been. And that is the trick with Marxist leninists and their communists parties. Their governments have never been communist. They make lofty arguments about the benefits of communism. But have never once managed to actually transition or move towards transition in a reasonable fashion.

It's the reason that to a 1. Nearly every person you meet who has Marxist leninist aspirations. Can almost always be described as accelerationist. They know full well it is at best a lateral transition. And not a transition to an actually better government. So the only way they can achieve motivating people to switch. Is to make the other worse. Capitalists do the same. They're both children. And neither should be misconstrued with actual small c communists.

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

That’s fair. There’s no definition for civil rights or social restrictions in a form of economy, so I just chose Russia as an example.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And you are absolutely right to choose Russia as an example. While they are not and have never been communist. They were the very model of a Marxist leninist government. And Putin is a direct spin-off of their kgb. Each and every one of the modern Russian oligarchs has direct ties back to the party's elite. So you absolutely can trace it all back to Marxist leninism.

My only real objection was the name communism getting caught up in the middle of it far too much than it ever deserved. Many of us in the west really have no idea what it is or what it means. And ML gleefully misuse it only confusing the situation more.

But your criticism of Russia is very valid.

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

I guess I also could have referenced oppressive civil rights issues in Cuba as a more accurate example of communism existing with authoritarianism.

[–] Eldritch@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

They're also ML. Very much having an overreaching state and currency. Though the argument could be made that they are the best behaved of all ml examples. Largely because of their isolation and general lack of resources. They haven't sought massive expansion or been the subject of outside interests.

Largely being left to themselves and their own devices. They kind of stagnated in a bubble. They do have significant cultural and social oppression. A lot of external media is not allowed in. Although that's not all on cuba. There's no money in it for capitalists. So they make no effort. Even China will allow Western media in within reason.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

None of that has anything to do with horseshoe theory, though, which is the idea that the far left and far right are similar. Homosexuality was decriminalized under Lenin, who was further left than Stalin, who recriminalized it. Your example goes against the original claim.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should read more about the difference between economic and social legislation. I used that example to illustrate the difference between the two, and the point seems to be lost on you.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago

I understand the difference. I fail to see how it proves Horseshoe Theory.