Communism

2201 readers

63 users here now

Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

ComradeClucky@lemmy.ml

337

Protestation (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 weeks ago by protestation@discuss.tchncs.de to c/communism@lemmy.ml

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

The USA had better fossil fuels and by better fossil fuels I mean more coal.
The Soviet Union fell because it mostly had to rely on oil and had no solution against the US petrodollar scheme.. China is already doing better with just half as much coal.

Even cultist theocracies could win against communism with enough energy/electricity sources packed in a small area that can't be easily transported.

This coal advantage is quickly disappearing as solar power and to a lesser extend, wind power, is making inroads. By 2030, coal will be a curse like oil as it's easier to transport than solar and wind, which aren't transportable at all.

[+] Valmond@lemmy.world -15 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

You say it like the fall of the USSR regime was a bad thing.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 weeks ago

Undeniably it was a bad thing that the Soviet Union fell. 7 million people died because of it falling, and we lost one of the most progressive countries from an international perspective. Never has a country been so firmly dedicated to anti-Imperialism and decolonization with the actual real power that the Soviet Union had to back that up, it not only came with huge victories for the working class internally, but also supported Cuba, Palestine, Algeria, Korea, China, defeated the Nazis (90% of Nazis killed during WWII were from the Soviets), and more.

So yes, the USSR falling was a bad thing.

[–] folaht@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It was a bad thing.
Not only because of the things REEEEvolution said. Child prostitution, bread lines (which came AFTER the fall), wars and a fall of life expectency, but I live in Western Europe and the dismantling of the Soviet Union also triggered the dismantling of social democracy and rise of both fascism and rainbow capitalism in my own country and I sometimes don't know which one to be more disgusted by.
Well fascism of course, but like religious people I consider their ideas to be so outdated that I'm often more amused and amazed by their stupidity and backwardness than I am frustrated by them during an age where China currently is undeniably the largest superpower in the world.

[+] vfreire85@lemmy.ml -7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

it was a good thing - what came after it was a bad thing.

ultimately what happened is that, confronted with either advancing the revolution or burocratizing the party cadres, the ussr chose the last one. the result could be no other than the restoration of capitalism. so far just cuba seems to be resisting this trend, but for how long?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 weeks ago

"Advancing the revolution" of course being a shorthand for "spending all resources on exporting it like Trotsky wanted, only to end up failing externally and internally" rather than building up production so that it could actually afford to support revolution around the world, which it did in cases like Cuba, Palestine, Algeria, and more.

The dissolution of the Soviet Union was a complicated factor, but it was by no means because they chose to develop, rather than get themselves wiped out immediately like Trotsky wanted. There are many Socialist nations today, the PRC is by far the biggest and most relevant example on the global stage, it isn't just Cuba.

[+] Valmond@lemmy.world -14 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

True.

Cuba is a real dictatorship though, not really the country of the people IMO.

[–] Partisan@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Instead of repeating western progaganda, you could use your time to inform yourself about Cuban democracy and how that democracy is superior to western liberal democracies.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world -5 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

"Cuban democracy" aren't they the epitome of communism??

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Democracy is a core part of communism.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

War is peace

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.

-K. Marx & F. Engels

The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.

-V.I. Lenin

From its origin the Soviet State consciously embodied features of democracy and features of dictatorship. But the democracy was enjoyed by the vast majority of the population, and the dictatorship was over a small minority. At present I do not wish to go into the whys and wherefores of this, or into its rights and wrongs, but I just want to make one point absolutely clear: it is that democracy and dictatorship have never necessarily been mutually exclusive terms. To speak of “democracy” without saying for whom may be misleading.

To refer to dictatorship without specifying who dictates to whom is also liable to cause misunderstanding. The Soviet State, set up in October 1917, professed to give full democratic rights to the vast majority of the people. Did it do this? In Part I of this book I shall give my answer to this question by describing the organization of Soviet life as I have lived it, from 1931 to 1936. Soviet life, to one who has been brought up in a country where the factories and the land, the mines and the shops, are private property, is a new life, a life which differs in a vast number of ways from that of other countries. And, having lived this life, I find I can only agree with the Webbs and with Sir Bernard Pares, and refer to it as essentially democratic.

-P. Sloan

We can go on. Democracy is essential to the lifeblood of Communism, and Communists everywhere have strengthened the democracy for the working class while removing it from the Capitalists. This is the truth of democracy and Communism.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

Are you under the impression that Socialist economies and democracy are at odds with each other? Socialism is more comprehensively democratic for a much larger portion of the population than western-style liberal democracies, as Socialist democracy is run by and for the working class, while liberal democracy is run by and for the Capitalist class.

[–] vfreire85@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

you got it wrong.