this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

42472 readers
1136 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Cloak@lemmy.ml
mekhos@lemmy.ml
tmpod
14specks@lemmy.ml
ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
AdaShovelace@lemmy.ml
2
Why are socialist and communist countries usually considered more authoritarian than capitalist countries? (reddthat.com)
submitted 1 month ago by PumpkinDrama@reddthat.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Arelin@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Just as capitalist states are "authoritarian" against working class interests, socialist states are "authoritarian" against capitalist interests.

The state is a tool for one class to oppress another. The goal of (most) communists is to transition from capitalism — where the capitalist class is in power — to a stateless, classless communist society via socialism — where the working class is in power.

Public perception of which is more "authoritarian" therefore depends on which class is currently in power and is able to manufacture consent, and that is the capitalist class in the vast majority of the world right now since the USSR's overthrow.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

one of my favorite takes on this subject is from This Soviet World by Anna Louise Strong:

[–] theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Because authoritarians took over the Soviet Union and proceeded to try to run every other revolution.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

With the USSR overthrown, virtually all mainstream media now is capitalist propaganda. And the capitalist class obviously would not want the working class to prefer a system where workers are in power.

[–] Crampon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

They even had to build a wall to keep the capitalist working class outside of east Berlin.

That Pew data is outdated. They have new data from 2019. Why did you post outdated and bad data to strengthen you belief?

The latest research literally says conditions are better now for most people. Unless you hate homosexuals and women. Every metric indicate high standards of life and rights.

I hate capitalism as much as the next person. But posting like you did is how we got Trump. Just faking everything till it happens.

[–] RubicTopaz@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

"Bad data" is when you use data more representative of people who have actually lived under socialism and experienced the massive decline in quality of life, social welfare, housing, etc after capitalist bastards took it over and privatized everything for their profit

[–] Crampon@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Ye sure. No communist project has ever worked out because some people are by nature evil and hungry for power. Every communist regime has gone to shit because of it. Anyone hungry for power should be imprisoned because they are a danger to society. But most people rely on direction to function. It's a double edged blade.

Capitalism ruins everything in its path and communism eat it's children. Welcome to the suck.

[–] Sagittarii@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'd also expect there's more and more people propagandized by capitalist media in post-Soviet states as time has passed since capitalist bastards took it over. People who have not lived under socialism or experienced the massively decreased quality of life from the privatization forced on those countries.

Though fortunately it seems like the Russian capitalists have not managed to succeed in this, with more and more people identifying with the USSR than the capitalist Russian Federation in recent years.

Hard to do that at the heart of the revolution I guess. Maybe Russian communist parties could use that to become more revolutionary, specially with Russians able to see the stark difference between Russia under capitalism and China thriving under socialism. Doubt that'll happen while Putin is in power though.

[–] axont@hexbear.net 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Authoritarian is usually code for when white people don't rule a country

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Reporter: [REDACTED]
Reason: racism

We really ought to teach critical race theory in schools like conservative politicians and pundits claim.

[–] axont@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

lmao did someone really report me over getting their precious little white feelings hurt?

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago

anti-cracker-aktion moment

[–] themurphy@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Russia tho.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That’s why Russians aren’t “white” anymore. They’ve been downgraded to asiatic horde again, which is why NATOpedia has trotted out meat wave theory again. Like authoritarianism, whiteness is also an ever-shifting construct of imperialism/colonialism.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

If you're saying authoritarianism can be explained by non-whiteness....

But also saying that anyone opposing NATO become ipso facto non-white because it's "an ever-shifting construct"...

Then the "construct" has no explanatory power.

Why not just say 'authoritarianism' is opposition to the NATO bloc?

You're saying "authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc"

Why not skip the middle step?

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If you’re saying authoritarianism can be explained by non-whiteness…

I’m not saying that. I’m saying that “whiteness” as a construct is a tool of capitalism/imperialism/colonialism. And that the Global North similarly tends to attribute “authoritarianism” to whichever states are acting insufficiently subservient to their imperialist interests at any given moment. And I’m saying that these two constructs have a tendency to be aligned with each other, because they’re both tools of capitalism/imperialism/colonialism.

But also saying that anyone opposing NATO become ipso facto non-white because it’s “an ever-shifting construct”…

Whiteness is as old as European colonialism, and has been baked into capitalism—which began in Europe—from the start. Whiteness has been twisted into all sorts of nonsensical logic pretzels. See for example honorary Aryans honorary whites. It has no explanatory power because it is simply a tool of power. Even the Irish, Italian, and other Catholic European immigrants have suffered it within our own country. As Josep Borrell has more-or-less said, the imperial core is the “garden”, and the rest of the world is the “jungle.” Imperialism uses race—which again is made-up bullshit—as a tool to justify their imperialism.

You’re saying “authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc”

I’m not saying that, but the NATO bloc often seems to imply it. international-community-1international-community-2

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

And I’m saying that these two constructs have a tendency to be aligned with each other

It's not empiricaly right tho. Hitler and Stalin are the first type-examples. In the modern era it's normally Putin and Xi who get the label.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I already covered the origins of this propagandistic Western conceptualization of “authoritarianism”/“totalitarianism” in another comment in this post. But I’ll add a 1955 CIA report that was declassified in 2008.

Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

[–] CindyTheSkull@hexbear.net 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why not skip the middle step?

Go ask the NATO bloc and their supporters. The obvious and surface answer is that it has to do with making for an easy "us-vs-them" identifier. "Of course they're bad, they aren't white like us good wholesome folk are, who are inherently good and wholesome because we're white, and being good and wholesome makes us right and correct in what we do and you can tell because we're white. The ones who are bad clearly aren't like us. They're not white!" Yes, it is circular reasoning and garbage logic. But I don't know why you're getting pissy at us for that instead of the dipshits white people who keep moving the goalposts on the meaning of whiteness, as they always have done to suit their agenda. Take it up with them.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry I have no idea what you're talking about.

The thread was asking about authoritarianism. I was slagging the people who said it's about being black, not about Hitler, Stalin, the USSR, Putin, etc.

[–] CindyTheSkull@hexbear.net 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You were asking about the shifting nature of the meaning of the term whiteness. Go up and read your own comment to see how you related that to authoritarianism. If you can't follow your own train of thought, then I can't help you because it makes it apparent you're not asking in good faith.

You're saying "authoritarianism = non-whiteness = opposition to the NATO bloc"

What I'm trying to explain to you is that "we" are not saying that. The people who use whiteness to justify their actions and otherize their enemies are saying that. This isn't difficult.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Like I said, I'm here to slag Yanks and their know-nothing racist views of the world.

It's astonishing how they'll confidently lecture ya on things they demonstrate complete ignorance of.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think the myopic point you’re making is unintentionally promoting some heinous stuff, or else I have to wonder how you seemed to end up with a Lemmygrad alt account. I’m not seeing any “yanks” here being confused about race.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

The original thing was they said "authoritarianism is when not white".

After that it got confusing.

[–] frightful_hobgoblin@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The shite Americans will make about skin-colour.

This comment doesn't stand up to 3 seconds thought. It's their one answer to every question.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

Honestly though, like our grappling with racism in the states smears our views of geopolitics so much. Like we struggle to imagine a culture not wrapped up in it.

[–] Nemo@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Because communism doesn't work for large, heterogenous groups, so increasing amounts of coercion are used to keep the system running.

And new forms of government such as socialism are generally more succeptible to corruption as people find the new loopholes; as a government gets more corrupt, those who corrupted it seek to consolidate their power.

I think socialism can be made workable, as we examine and correct the problems with previous attempts. I don't think communism works well for human societies, as it requires people to act better than we know they do.

[–] theshatterstone54@feddit.uk 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd argue that no system truly works for larger groups.

more susceptible to corruption

I couldn't disagree more. Any system is very susceptible to corruption. It's all about accountability and transparency, which those in power will never make themselves do, because it is actively harming them by stripping them of opportunities to amass more power and influence.

And that is true in any system. Communist states became totalitarian dictatorships, while Capitalist nations also grow more corrupt because of greed and power lust, to the point where you see things like "the revolving door" in the USA, or the Tory party donors essentially paying for peerages in the UK. And of course, there's also lobbying.

Corruption is everywhere and the common man gets screwed over regardless of the system or people in charge, because the good people are always too good to compete, fight, and play dirty against these politicians so the winners are always the evil ones.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

That's not only an incredibly nihilistic way of seeing the world, but also it is exactly what the bourgeoise dictatorships want you to see: "everything is terrible but the dreaded others are worse, now shut up and work for my 10th yacht"

[–] weeeeum@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I believe it's inherent to the system. The whole point of a communist system is a centrally planned, and controlled, economy. This gives the state immense control and as inherent to every form of government, self preservation at any cost.

As discussed in "rules for rulers" by cgp grey, there is no such thing as a benevolent or kind dictator. All politicians and leaders will use any means available to themselves to further their own ambitions.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

🤣

[–] Thevenin@beehaw.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Historically, there have been more socialist and/or communist states associated with the USSR than not. Especially when measured by population.

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 month ago

I mean yeah, any successful socialist revolution will naturally seek good relations with the most powerful socialist state of all. Doesn't really answer their question though.