It’s very funny to me that leftists can explain the same simple concept numerous times, and reactionaries will make the same misunderstanding about what was explained.
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society that is to be achieved after Socialism (or directly after Capitalism if you’re an Anarcho-Communist, like Kropotkin, author of the book mentioned in the title). Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
Following this, we can see that, for example, the USSR was a genuine attempt at Socialism along the lines of the Marxist-Leninist strategy, that never reached Communism. Communism was the goal, but it never got there. Reactionaries like yourself will take this as a dismissal of any attempts at achieving Socialism purely as a lack of understanding.
Similarly, reactionaries will take clearly fascist, far-right Capitalist regimes like Nazi Germany, do exactly no thinking, then assume it was actually Socialist and that it’s yet another example of leftists denying Socialist projects.
There’s more nuance, Anarchists may believe that the USSR created a new class of beaurocrats and thus wasn’t true Worker Ownership, but even as someone with Anarchist leanings I acknowledge that the USSR was still directed at achieving Communism, but those are arguments from people that genuinely understand leftism, not reactionaries who make the same mistakes as each other.
Zero time between bolded assertions of misrepresentation… and ‘I bet you also mean Nazis.’
Nah. I’m describing conversations that pivot like it’s just a word game. ‘We should do a communism.’ ‘That super didn’t work in several example countries.’ ‘They don’t count! That wasn’t true communism.’
Okay… but they were trying.
They tried to try communism.
They had your stated goals… and often your planned methods… and it went a certain way. Why else would an example count? Is this not exactly the criticism y’all do for capitalism, when you say it inevitably tends toward the worst outcomes? You’d never respect some asshole insisting ‘capitalism is only when perfectly informed consumers make rational choices between unlimited options,’ and therefore ‘capitalism has never been tried.’ That inane hair-splitting wouldn’t dispel condemnation of observable problems. They know which countries and systems you’re talking about, when you talk shit about them.
Y’all know which countries people are talking about, and why. There’s a flag in this image. Picking nits about word choice is not a meaningful defense of what they fucked up, and why.
You’re combining disparate groups of people using arguments against things they aren’t bringing up, and deliberately missing the points brought up.
The people who tell you that the USSR wasn’t true Communism are correct, it never reached there. By deliberately using wrong terminology, you prove a lack of intention to actually talk to Socialists. Don’t say “Communism failed,” say that Socialist countries have failed to react Communism. Then you may have an actual convo. People don’t usually reject the USSR being Socialist, they just point out how you’re using wrong terminology, correctly.
Additionally, it is absolutely not the same to say Capitalism inevitably fails. The people who say that do so by analyzing the mechanics of Capitalism, not by vaguely gesturing at fallen Capitalist states and assuming means from ends to fit their narrative. Analyze the fall of the USSR, there’s a ton that went wrong that can be learned from, but none of it was because tools turn people evil if they collectively own them. There’s no mysticism to tools, people can collectively own them without issue, it’s all a matter of how. Worker co-operatives prove this, they are more stable and have higher rates of employee satisfaction. Same with public programs like single payer Healthcare, or housing initiatives like in Red Vienna.
Finally, for this meme. The Conquest of Bread is a book by Anarcho-Communist Pyotr Kropotkin. The image is a well-known and widely-shared meme, with the Hammer and Sickle all, but the changes made by OP indicate this is supposed to be from an Anarchist perspective, not Marxist-Leninist like the USSR. You’re arguing against ghosts that aren’t here.
Please, if you want to say anything of value, start by using correct terminology. You’ll get farther.
Right, because you know what people told me, and I don’t. I must never have had these conversations because they’re not what you want to bring up.
Coupling that with ‘don’t use wrong terminology you didn’t use’ is illustrative.
none of it was because tools turn people evil if they collectively own them.
Oh is that all you’re proposing? Is it? Is it, though? Is it really? No further details that might be relevant?
Do you not feel the slightest tug of cognitive dissonance, scolding someone for not inferring the exact sub-branch they’re allowed to critique, in a one-sentence joke?
You explained yourself, you were complaining about ghosts who claimed the USSR wasn’t a true attempt at Communism using wrong terminology, calling it Communism, when this is an Anarchist post.
I’m proposing that tools don’t turn people evil if they share them, yes. You haven’t done any analysis thay we can discuss here yet, and so far you’ve alluded that your only reasoning against leftism is that some Socialist states have fallen.
If you decide to say something relevant that we can discuss, I’m down! But you have to start somewhere, and you haven’t yet.
Yeah why would a joke concern a related topic instead of absolutely precisely exactly what’s right there in the text, and by in-the-text I mean the fact there’s no text?
Nobody ever jokes about things unless they’re categorically opposed.
Obviously a meme community should be deadly serious, for scholarly discourse, and also nuh-uh nobody oversteps your position or misuses your rhetoric, never ever. A ghost did it!
Imagine having such a tiny, useless brain that you think “hurr durr attempts at communism weren’t successful” is a good argument when we see capitalism failing worldwide.
It has been. India was a socialist state. The illusion of socialism failing was thanks to western sanctions. Until capitalism fucked us all. 40% of the wealth is now owned by 1%.
Zamindari system? Destroyed by socialism.
Caste-based reservation for affirmative action? Introduced by socialism.
Famine? Green revolution under socialism solved that issue.
Dairy development for malnourished kids? White revolution under socialism solved that.
Armed freedom revolution before independence? Azad Hind Fauj (Free India Army) under the command of Subhash Chandra Bose, a prominent leftist-nationalist fought the British Indian army, and HSRA, the Hindustan Socialist Republic Association assassinated imperialist genocidal scums.
There is no equivalent data for the second image, because “communism has never been tried.”
It’s very funny to me that leftists can explain the same simple concept numerous times, and reactionaries will make the same misunderstanding about what was explained.
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society that is to be achieved after Socialism (or directly after Capitalism if you’re an Anarcho-Communist, like Kropotkin, author of the book mentioned in the title). Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production.
Following this, we can see that, for example, the USSR was a genuine attempt at Socialism along the lines of the Marxist-Leninist strategy, that never reached Communism. Communism was the goal, but it never got there. Reactionaries like yourself will take this as a dismissal of any attempts at achieving Socialism purely as a lack of understanding.
Similarly, reactionaries will take clearly fascist, far-right Capitalist regimes like Nazi Germany, do exactly no thinking, then assume it was actually Socialist and that it’s yet another example of leftists denying Socialist projects.
There’s more nuance, Anarchists may believe that the USSR created a new class of beaurocrats and thus wasn’t true Worker Ownership, but even as someone with Anarchist leanings I acknowledge that the USSR was still directed at achieving Communism, but those are arguments from people that genuinely understand leftism, not reactionaries who make the same mistakes as each other.
Zero time between bolded assertions of misrepresentation… and ‘I bet you also mean Nazis.’
Nah. I’m describing conversations that pivot like it’s just a word game. ‘We should do a communism.’ ‘That super didn’t work in several example countries.’ ‘They don’t count! That wasn’t true communism.’
Okay… but they were trying.
They tried to try communism.
They had your stated goals… and often your planned methods… and it went a certain way. Why else would an example count? Is this not exactly the criticism y’all do for capitalism, when you say it inevitably tends toward the worst outcomes? You’d never respect some asshole insisting ‘capitalism is only when perfectly informed consumers make rational choices between unlimited options,’ and therefore ‘capitalism has never been tried.’ That inane hair-splitting wouldn’t dispel condemnation of observable problems. They know which countries and systems you’re talking about, when you talk shit about them.
Y’all know which countries people are talking about, and why. There’s a flag in this image. Picking nits about word choice is not a meaningful defense of what they fucked up, and why.
You’re combining disparate groups of people using arguments against things they aren’t bringing up, and deliberately missing the points brought up.
The people who tell you that the USSR wasn’t true Communism are correct, it never reached there. By deliberately using wrong terminology, you prove a lack of intention to actually talk to Socialists. Don’t say “Communism failed,” say that Socialist countries have failed to react Communism. Then you may have an actual convo. People don’t usually reject the USSR being Socialist, they just point out how you’re using wrong terminology, correctly.
Additionally, it is absolutely not the same to say Capitalism inevitably fails. The people who say that do so by analyzing the mechanics of Capitalism, not by vaguely gesturing at fallen Capitalist states and assuming means from ends to fit their narrative. Analyze the fall of the USSR, there’s a ton that went wrong that can be learned from, but none of it was because tools turn people evil if they collectively own them. There’s no mysticism to tools, people can collectively own them without issue, it’s all a matter of how. Worker co-operatives prove this, they are more stable and have higher rates of employee satisfaction. Same with public programs like single payer Healthcare, or housing initiatives like in Red Vienna.
Finally, for this meme. The Conquest of Bread is a book by Anarcho-Communist Pyotr Kropotkin. The image is a well-known and widely-shared meme, with the Hammer and Sickle all, but the changes made by OP indicate this is supposed to be from an Anarchist perspective, not Marxist-Leninist like the USSR. You’re arguing against ghosts that aren’t here.
Please, if you want to say anything of value, start by using correct terminology. You’ll get farther.
Right, because you know what people told me, and I don’t. I must never have had these conversations because they’re not what you want to bring up.
Coupling that with ‘don’t use wrong terminology you didn’t use’ is illustrative.
Oh is that all you’re proposing? Is it? Is it, though? Is it really? No further details that might be relevant?
Do you not feel the slightest tug of cognitive dissonance, scolding someone for not inferring the exact sub-branch they’re allowed to critique, in a one-sentence joke?
You explained yourself, you were complaining about ghosts who claimed the USSR wasn’t a true attempt at Communism using wrong terminology, calling it Communism, when this is an Anarchist post.
I’m proposing that tools don’t turn people evil if they share them, yes. You haven’t done any analysis thay we can discuss here yet, and so far you’ve alluded that your only reasoning against leftism is that some Socialist states have fallen.
If you decide to say something relevant that we can discuss, I’m down! But you have to start somewhere, and you haven’t yet.
I described conversations I’ve had and your hot take is ‘no you didn’t.’
If what I say doesn’t matter then you can find someone else to project at.
Your initial comment:
“There is no equivalent data for the second image, because ‘communism has never been tried.’”
This is an Anarchist meme, as we’ve proven
Nobody here has said thay Communism hasn’t been tried
The only thing leftists generally say is that the USSR never reached Communism
Anarchists love to point to Revolutionary Catalonia as a good example of Anarcho-Communism, and wouldn’t say it hadn’t been tried
Conclusion: you’re arguing with ghosts that don’t exist here for no other reason than to generally be anti-leftist.
Yeah why would a joke concern a related topic instead of absolutely precisely exactly what’s right there in the text, and by in-the-text I mean the fact there’s no text?
Nobody ever jokes about things unless they’re categorically opposed.
Obviously a meme community should be deadly serious, for scholarly discourse, and also nuh-uh nobody oversteps your position or misuses your rhetoric, never ever. A ghost did it!
Yeesh.
Imagine having such a tiny, useless brain that you think “hurr durr attempts at communism weren’t successful” is a good argument when we see capitalism failing worldwide.
It has been. India was a socialist state. The illusion of socialism failing was thanks to western sanctions. Until capitalism fucked us all. 40% of the wealth is now owned by 1%.
Zamindari system? Destroyed by socialism.
Caste-based reservation for affirmative action? Introduced by socialism.
Famine? Green revolution under socialism solved that issue.
Dairy development for malnourished kids? White revolution under socialism solved that.
Armed freedom revolution before independence? Azad Hind Fauj (Free India Army) under the command of Subhash Chandra Bose, a prominent leftist-nationalist fought the British Indian army, and HSRA, the Hindustan Socialist Republic Association assassinated imperialist genocidal scums.
Removed by mod
… under which religious empire?
Under Jawaharlal Lal Nehru, the first prime minister of secular, sovereign, socialist republic of newly independent India?
If that counts then what doesn’t.