• fosforus@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            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?

    • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.

        • 0x4E4F@infosec.pubOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months 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. 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@infosec.pubOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months 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.

    • Cowbee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

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

        • Cowbee@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

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