• PopOfAfrica@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I believe in communism as an economic framework.

          Authoritarianism paired with communism is just as bad as any other Authoritarinism.

              • Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                46
                ·
                1 year ago

                You should check out Vincent Bevins’ book The Jakarta Method. He covers the genocide of leftists in Indonesia but throughout it talks to people who’ve been victims of the Jakarta Method, people who were ostensibly where you are, they were communists who were against the use of force. And do you know what happened to them and their friends? They had to flee for their lives while their friends got murdered because as it turns out Capitalists will absolutely use authority to squash and kill anything that even remotely threatens their power. They’ve since changed their mind.

                • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  I appreciate that you are being more reasonable than the others commenting to me. I will give it a read.

                  to be clear though, I’m not even opposed to revolution, but a society can’t take one autocratic rule and replace it with another. I think, especially with this thread, that a lot of people here are taking their rightful hatred of capitalism and channeling it into the support of an oligarchic authoritarian (Putin and Russia). Oligarchic Russia should not be the model of communist nation. This is why I largely don’t consider these commenters to be arguing in good faith. They are rooting for a Capitalist nation to win in a fight with a bunch of other capitalist nations.

                  • JamesConeZone [they/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    37
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t know a single communist who supports Russia or Putin. Why would they support a capitalist state? Do you mean that they argue why, in historical materialist terms, war between Russia and the West has been caused by western expansion? In that case, they are explaining geopolitical movements to our current situation, not supporting Russia if that makes sense. I can see how “critical support” against American imperialism (eg, support with heavy criticism) can come off as being “pro-Russia” from the outside, but it really is just explaining, contra the neoliberal take on geopolitical war, why war is happening. Communists don’t approach international politics as good vs bad, they are far more nuanced which can be read as “pro” things they aren’t. Does that make sense? I am inebriated

                  • BurgerPunk [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    22
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I think you’re a really confused kid. I hope you read the Jakarta method, and hopefully at some point any book by an actual communist. Here’s a good one by Engel’s, its very short, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

                    If you’re communist you should learn what that means. And probably not tell us what you think we believe. Just deciding you know what we believe and telling us that our whole ideology is about misplaced anger, and how we don’t make sense is actually a little authoritarian to borrow your language

              • AntiOutsideAktion [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                29
                ·
                1 year ago

                300 years after the revolution people who talk about ‘communism’ will be using your definition. For now when people say ‘communism’ they’re talking about the ML(M) project of achieving that goal. This is a conversation that’s been going on for 150 years now. Not only have people argued out what you’re talking about, they’ve been able to see in real life what happens when you try to put principle to practice. You can’t have communism without class war. And if you don’t suppress the ruling class they will inevitably erode and destroy whatever victories you take from them. You have to use ‘authority’.

              • Egon [they/them]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                Who gives a shot what you believe in, when your actions and ideology supports the dictatorship of the bourgeoise? It doesn’t matter what esoteric strain you are, it matters what you do and it matters what the end of those actions are

        • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t think you should let a neoliberal define you. But I also think its inaccurate to act like I, a literal communist, am a neoliberal.

          I just don’t think its ok to be down with authoritarianism, and I don’t see authoritarianism as a prerequisite for communism.