They really really don't like the fact that a real communist state has never existed. They don't like that they have to understand what communism (or any unfamiliar concept to them) actually is, and they can't just point at a failure of a state and use it to paint the entire concept with that failure brush. There is a fundamental flaw with the prescribed process of transitioning to a communist state that makes creating an authoritarian dictatorship that prevents the final transition almost an inevitably. That flaw is real and has been demonstrated many times. But that doesn't mean that the basic concept of a communist state is bad, just that the process that's been attempted is. I'm not even in favor of communism, myself, but I do find it annoying when my father-in-law uses it like a slur when he doesnt even know what it really means, and reduces it down to stealing from the rich like this guy. Communism is actually a lovely idea on paper, and a true communist state, should one ever arise, would likely be a nice place to live. But I don't know for sure because a real communist state has never been formed.
But a capitalism where workers' wages/suffering etc were included in how people considered the price would also be lovely. (Ie, people actually get upset about sweatshop labour so the price of sweatshop goods increases yo offset that disgust) would also be lovely.
There's a huge gap between theory/hope and reality.
So, Vietnam isn't communist?
Vietnam is explicitly communist in that communism is a goal it seeks to achieve for its society. Unfortunately communism cannot exist in an isolated form, it must be global or it will be crushed. This is why there must be a transitionary state that withers away as its processes becone unnecesary or lose their political nature by simply becoming tasks required to run a society
From what I understand Vietnam is a fascinating combination of (borderline Stalinist at times) Communism combined with a 'socialist-minded' market economy. I could be wrong, I was reading about it a few years ago.
I don't really know what life looks like in Vietnam, but I'd like very much to know the workings, of government to the regular people.
The ancient Incan society would be considered a proto-communist of sorts. Each men will receive a plot of land when they come to a certain age. Though I'm not sure if living in Inca would have been better; they're constantly at war with other tribes. Q
I want to point out, that.... for communism, even on paper, to be a lovely idea and/or successful, the person in charge needs to have two things:
- Absolute loyalty from the population by some method that doesn't require oppression, coercion, intimidation, or the use of force. They basically need to believe that they are the right person for the job and stand behind them.
- Basically be absolute and exclusively altruistic. The selfish nature of humans, being the flawed creatures we are, basically makes this an impossibility.
I would add to point 2, that anyone who is that altruistic, would not desire to have, or hold, any power over others.
The combination of these two things will keep any rosy ideas about communism, as just ideas. In practice, it will be, or become corrupt, and the people will suffer. Pushing it into a downward spiral of violence against the people, until an inevitable revolution occurs and the communist dictator is removed by any means necessary (often involving them no longer living).
Don't get me wrong, there are different issues with capitalism, socialism, any monarch based society.... Pretty much every system is flawed. The key differentiator is whether we have the ability to deal with the challenges of a system as it arises. So far, communism has the least methods by which to do this.
Real communism doesn't need a single leader to maintain control or tonact altruistically. Real communism doesn't have a single leader at all. Resources and control are shared by the citizenry, decentralized to the community, thus the name. I'm by no means an expert on the ideal workings of a national scale communist control structure, but the point would be to form a stateless nation without any bourgeoisie in control anymore, but rather everyone would be of the proletariat and the proletariat would share control.
But you have hit the nail on the head of the problem with the transition to communism that I was alluding to. Normally it requires a populist party to overthrow or fundamentally reform a national system of governance. They take total control of the government and then total control of the nation's resources, factories, properties... the "means of production"... from the bourgeoisie. That part has happened several times in history. It is the rest of the transition that has failed to occur every time. What is meant to happen next is that they then relinquish those means of production back to the proletariat, set up the means of self-governance, and then dissolve themselves and the central government. That has never happened.
The problem is that, once the nation falls under the control of one party, it does require the leader(s) of that party to act, as you said, with pure altruism and willingly give up absolute power. And typically people that become party leaders are the kind of people that seek power and that do not like others having control. The problem is that the process as described requires people that are driven and insentivized to lead a major national reform. And then it needs those same people to act against their own nature and self-interest for ideology and the greater good. This is why that power had never been decentralized in any real world example of a transition to communism. That is what is meant when we say that there has never been a real communist country. There has never been one without a single party/dictator is control. There has never been a decentralized control of resources and power on a national scale. Those things have only ever been achieved on a community level to this date, and those communities struggle as they still must function under and within a capitalist system.
Wow. That's a lot.
You realize the vast majority of readers don't know communism from socialism, right?
Well maybe they are slightly more informed now.
Communist state
🤔
Hahahaha
It looks like Trudeau's team is adopting some of what the US Democratic party does: don't bother refuting the arguments with facts--because conservatives aren't interested in facts, and refuting them gives their insane arguments validity--call them weird because, frankly, they are weird.
The next time Poillevre starts hyperventilating about "woke" just dismiss him with "Dude, what is wrong with you, do you not know how weird you sound?".
Would be pretty good to also take a note from the Dems and have Trudeau step down for the next election.
As a Canadian, I'm over him. I'd never vote for PP, but I'd like to see some new options please.
Fair.
The challenge is the LPC doesn’t have much bench strength. Like the Democrats, they don’t tend to cultivate personalities, and the CPC has spent the last several years hillarying Chrystia Freeland, which is a shame.
I’ve heard rumblings of snoozers and centrists in an attempt to convince voters that the LPC is "serious", which will work about as well as it did for Dion or Ignatieff.
Voters aren't really interested in calm, sensible governance. Oh, they say they are, but on the left at least they need to feel inspired, which Trudeau can't do anymore and Singh never could.
Commumusm is when gubmint no give tax credits to rich and when hair
"When hair" 🤣
Permanently Deleted
Are these real tweets? Please say so.
I just went and checked and yes, it is indeed real. He also shares all his Xits in both English and French, which is amusing, but surely must be annoying for his followers. Why not have @JustinTrudeauEn and @JustinTrudeauFr?
Haha Xit
I just went and checked and yes, it is indeed real.
This totally makes my day. LOL
Not a social media guy but im completely fine with him using one account. We should see our leader speaking both official languages more often, not just when in quebec
I couldn't believe it either. This is a weird timeline.
Classic "communism is when capitalism" post
the funny thing is that pierre poilievre thinks he's actually likable.
but then again you can't spell poilievre without lie
People are not working for free.
The successful are also not robbed. Only the lazy non-working are robbed.
More like they're not allowed to rob
Okay maybe robbed a bit at the start
It sure feels like I am
rare trudeau w
There is one critical step missing between 'rob the succesful' and 'starve everybody to death':
The succesful revenge by sacrifying all the cattle.
Canada is a meme at this point.
No more than the States. This is our Hillary Clinton moment. I'm a little too blinded by fear to be able to accurately judge PP's actual election chances so I guess we'll have to see if history will repeat itself.
The problem with capitalism is that power and wealth concentrates in the hands of a few insiders, so let's in fact concentrate all that wealth and power into one central bureaucracy to be controlled by a few insiders and back it up with full force of the state. Real smart idea.
DAFt
Yes because capitalism is going so so so well...
Pierre is an embarrassment to Canada
