Reading about FOSS philosophy, degoogling, becoming against corporations, and now a full-blown woke communist (like Linus Torvalds)
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
31 points (76.3% liked)
Linux
48371 readers
1193 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm saying I don't believe you've ever engaged with communism. I don't believe you've read a single book. I don't believe you've even read a single pamphlet. I don't think you could give me a simplified breakdown of what historical materialism is and I don't believe you could tell me what the 5 basic classes are that marxists define, along with a simple 1 sentence description of their scientific definition. I don't think you were a communist and I don't think you know anything about the "historical record of communism" beyond what you have passively consumed from the far right wing fuckwads that you've surrounded yourself with and allowed to rot your brain. I'm saying that the confident manner in which you bullshit about these things is a severe personal failing.
All of these are 101 things that anyone who has actually engaged with the topic of socialism for more than like 1 single week would be able to answer instantly and easily.
I'm saying that your political opinions and knowledge of history is based on vibes that you have attained from the massive quantity of propaganda you uncritically consume and not from any actual meaningful knowledge.
Clear enough?
You've not looked into Communism too much have you?
Marx had the opportunity to see Communist movements rise in his own timeline. And he opposed the implementation of Communism in a Democratic manner. And wrote about it in his criticiques of the Germany's Communist movements source. In his criticiques he lays out how he believes a transitional state should be laid out, how it should be organized. And later Lenin refers extensively to this blueprint in his written works and it's clear to me upon reading that he truly believes what he says.
In my experience about almost every modern day Communist hear arguments made about the USSR not being based in Communism and have failed to even hear of this critique of the mythic Democratic Communism they believe I'm so much.
Read the critique, and given everything you know about human beings tell me honestly, do you truly believe a multi-generational dictatorship of the proletariat, led by you (or someone whom you'd champion), would really work?
I've been on the internet a very long time. But this is the first time I've seen a Communist (or anyone really) ague their position based on the vibes of the person their arguing against.
Yeah so you're avoiding everything I said and injecting a completely different topic that you also don't understand.
Marx's critique isn't with democracy it's with bourgeoise-democracy. You would understand this if you understood even the basic bare minimum about marxist theory. All you are doing here is demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between what marxists refer to as a bourgeoise-democracy and what marxists refer to as a proletarian-democracy. Or if you prefer, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie vs the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx's "opposition to democracy" that you are utilising for bullshit propaganda here is opposition to using the mechanisms of bourgeoise-democracy to achieve socialism (because they're designed for the bourgeoisie and to produce outcomes the bourgeoisie want) and instead advocates for revolution to destroy that dictatorship-of-class and install a new democracy of the workers, a new dictatorship of class but one instead run by the working class (the vast majority) instead of the former ruling class (the bourgeoisie, the vast minority).
These are incredibly basic 101 concepts that, if you were a communist as you claim, you would already be aware of and understand. You were not a communist. You haven't even read a pamphlet like the manifesto, let alone the Critique Gotha Programme that you're linking to. I have though. And to anyone that actually HAS read these things that you're pretending to have read you look like and absolute clown who is winging it.
Marx's critique isn't with democracy, it's with democracy that disagrees with him.
I do understand the difference. The difference is that to transition from the former to the later, Marx advocates for violent revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship to "re-educate" the populace. It's practically hand waved over by Marx and modern Communists, but it's the most important part of the process. Who controls that dictatorship has all the effective powers of a dictatorship and has the ability to make life for the people they rule hell. Essentially Marx unironically created a worse version of Feudalism where there was no check on the power of the ruler(s) on the assumption that compassion.
Unfortunately, even in a post revolution environment; the working class will never voluntarily choose to rule in the fashion that Marx things they would. No matter the re-education instilled.
My interpretation of it is essentially Lenin and Mao's interpretation of it, just with the benefits of historical hindsight. I imagine, a younger, more idealistic me in 1920s St. Petersburg would have been a proud Bolshevik with the utmost confidence in the party leadership to lead us into a glorious, worker led future. If that makes me a clown whose winging it; my only request is that I get some ranch dipping sauce so at least I can get my vibes right.
"Dictatorship" doesn't mean the same thing when Marx uses it vs what you understand the word to mean. Marx is talking about a dictatorship of CLASS. IE a large group of people within society. In liberal democracy the "ruling class" are the bourgeoisie, the capitalists, the billionaires and millionaires. They are the ruling class because when they led the revolutions to overthrow feudalism they designed the new system so that they would be the ruling class. That's how it works. A dictatorship of CLASS.
Marx calls for exactly the same thing. A revolution that overthrows the current ruling class and installs a new ruling class. When the bourgeoisie overthrew the monarchs and their aristocracy they installed themselves as the ruling class, Marx calls for overthrowing the bourgeoisie and installing the proletariat as the new ruling class.
This isn't a downgrade to democracy it is an UPGRADE to democracy. The current system only produces the results that the bourgeoisie wants. Socialism on the other hand with the proletariat in charge produces the results that the proletariat want.
No it isn't because your description above is fucking wrong. I'm telling you what Lenin and Mao's interpretation is literally right now. This is basic as fuck stuff.
You're acting like socialist countries don't objectively provide a better quality of life than capitalist countries when compared at an equal level of development lmao. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/
Your understanding of any of these topics is incredibly vulgar. A warped and contorted understanding that you've only learned through extremely passive engagement with the topic.
This happened in Venezuela, Cuba, Russia (and in several of the Soviet satellite states), and China. In all of them but Cuba it was explicitly done by Communists in the name of Communism with the states goal of implementing Communism (Cuba was more of a Fuck Bautista thing that adopted Communism in the post).
Do you believe Democracy was "Upgraded" in those places?
I literally liked to Lenin's interpretation. Lenin literally followed that interpretation. How is it not Lenin's interpretation?
Because they don't over time. The conclusion of WW2 gave us the ability to observe the development of nations over time split into two with one half being Communist and the other being Capitalist. West/East Germany, North/South Korea, pretty clear record there.
I think you may have meant to use a different adjective there.
Let me leave you with this. Do you without the benefit of hindsight in the 1920s would you have been a Czarist/Cossack or a Soviet? Would you have fled to Taiwan or stayed in China in 1945? Would you have fled to Florida or joined Castro in Cuba?
Can you honestly tell me that you in those environments would not have supported the Communist revolution?
100% yes. If you do not then you simply have no idea what the democratic structure was and how that resulted in more democratic outcomes. You have a singleminded attitude that the design of liberal democracy - a multi party system where the people that promise to implement the policies that the largest donors want end up in power, where they do exactly what those people want - is the only thing that should be called "democracy".
The soviet system was democratic. But this democracy has a different structure to the liberal democracy.
Instead of voting for leaders and then locals. The whole structure is built on smaller locals. Typically you will personally know the candidate. The people elect via agreement with the candidate or not. Then the members of the local soviet(council) vote on who will represent that council at the next tier up, and then those the tier up, and so on and so forth all the way up to the national supreme congress which then elects the politburo and so on. This is democratic.
You can't claim you like Cuba but that you dislike the electoral system in these other places. They're literally the same. All of them were based on the soviet system.
You ask me do I think they're more democratic and I ask you why 95% of the Chinese population is happy with and supports their government while less than 40% is happy with their government in most liberal democracies. Which of these systems is producing happier people? Which of them is producing a more democratic outcome in the eyes of its people? You can not use the racist claim this is propaganda, or brainwashing, because the study I'm citing for it specifically states that is NOT what drives the Chinese people's support for their government, conducted by Harvard, as a 30 year independent study.
Re-read what I said to you.
I've literally shown you a study that says the opposite read the fucking things you're being sent or you won't get another response because you are not participating in good faith, it is a waste of my time and you're a fucking dickbag for being so rude and disrespectful.
Bringing Korea into this is fucking absurd. The US performed a genocide there killing 20% of the entire population and razed the country to the ground, 95% of all buildings were turned to rubble, and the south was then occupied with a dictatorship regime that carried out mass killings. The south has been under US military occupation ever since. Their country is on its FIFTH republic because the occupation state has collapsed so many times and been couped EVERY time by US backed dickbags. The population of Korea wants to unite, but the north and south can not, because every attempt at doing so the US demands a seat at the table where they then scupper the talks. As for East Germany, it had no industrial base and was the least developed and most damaged in the war? You're not comparing anything on an equal footing at all. You want an equal comparison? China and India were both equal, roughly the same population size and level of development at the end of ww2. Which system has developed the country better and provided for the people?
100% a soviet???? Are you out of your fucking mind? Have you actually ever looked at what the state of feudal russia was under the tsars? Lenin and the soviet revolution are some of the most unambiguous heroes of history and only a complete and totally incorrect understanding of what Russia was before and after could lead you to think otherwise. You want to support an average lifespan of 30 years old and not the improvement to 70 the soviets brought? You're fucking stupid mate. Dumb as a bag of rocks.
Once again you're out of your fucking mind. The average lifespan in China was 33 years old when the CPC launched the revolution. The average lifespan improved DURING the revolution, civil war and invasion by the Japanese because the liberation communists were bringing to the population was better than the life they had before.
How the fuck do you think revolutions happen? How the fuck do you think communists get popular support? Magic? Through people just believing that things will eventually in the future be better? Are you fucking mad? People in these conditions support what will bring an IMMEDIATE improvement to their conditions. And that's exactly what revolution brought.
Your grasp of history is tenuous and you are completely and totally propagandised. You have never engaged with these topics in any critical fashion and it shows.
Nope. If you don't understand what vulgar means in the political context you're demonstrating further lack of political literacy, particularly as "vulgar marxism" is a term any communist (as you claimed to have been once) should be quite familiar with. But I think at this point in the conversation you're realising just how obviously bullshit that claim is to any actual communists.
My apologies. Most modern Communists don't view the USSR or PRC as examples of Communism. I falsely assumed you were in the same camp. Unfortunately for me, I can't defend a Soviet Empire that caused the pain and suffering it did in Eastern Europe and Asia. Doing thing like killing half of all living Khazaks over a few years by intentionally starving them at scale, the Holodomor and the Great Leap Forward which killed more people than the Holocaust in less time are the sort of things I can't defend.
The Communist system allows these genocides to happen in the name of Collectivism and hasn't had a post incident process where it thinks and adds ways to avoid these problems for the next implementation is why I can no longer support Communism. When that changes I can reconsider.
Yes they do. You do not know any modern communists. I don't think you could name a single serious communist party that does not acknowledge the USSR and PRC. Not in the west and certainly not in the global south where they are significantly less critical and more supportive of both.
You constantly demonstrate a distinct lack of any interaction with any actual real communists. Your entire knowledge of everything is through white western liberal circlejerking. You have never been a member of a party, or a union, or even a tenants organisation. You have never done any real organising. You are not and never have been a communist.
For the love of god I am begging you to read Blackshirts and Reds. Or sit through the yellow Parenti lecture on youtube. You're just unfathomably wrong about this. These were feudal prior to the revolutions, living conditions were considerably worse.
Life expectancy does not go up when people's lives are getting worse. What are you failing to understand about this?
I have literally no idea what you're talking about. This is either some utter bullshit that you've made up on the spot or another demonstration of your lack of much understanding of the topic because what you probably meant to say here was kulaks. What's funny about that however is that you're trying to imply that is ethnic killing in some way when kulak just means rich wealthy farm owners, the claim that kulaks were "intentionally starved" is nonsense, they were rich. They were dispossessed and forcefully collectivised.
"DAE communism is worse than nazism?" here you are giving away what you really support, you are a fascist upset at the fact communists defeated the nazis. Nobody within their right mind thinks this, not anyone that knows anything about the topics. Only fascists spread this shit, because it benefits them. Not only that, but it's an antisemitic trope known as Double Genocide Theory.
If you're NOT a nazi, I strongly recommend you stop hanging around with nazis, because half the shit you are spewing is literally nazi propaganda and will get you accused of being one by anyone that understands these topics. You were upset at your ban? It's because you look like a literal nazi.
I also suggest you stop going around professing that you know a lot about communism and used to be one. You clearly don't. It's embarrassing. I get second hand embarrassment every time I read something you're trying to bullshit your way through, it's incredibly obvious and you just need to stop.
Please. There are so many examples of modern Communists claiming that the USSR and PRC aren't "true communism" that's it's become a meme.
No I meant Khazaks. The Holodomor killed the Kulaks and news of it got out to the West so it got the headlines. But the same Collective Farming experiments were tried im Khazakstsn and led to mass starvation that killed over half the native population.
Yeah? Which ones. Name a single major communist party.
You are not referring to communists. You are referring to people like yourself, who are uneducated morons that don't actually do any politics, but instead engage in politics as a source of entertainment through media. It's a spectator sport for you, you're not a participant, and neither are the """communists""" that you claim oppose these things. There are a handful of trotskyist parties of relevance in the world today, and while some of those are critical of China and the Stalin period of the USSR they still uphold it other than Stalin. Even Trotsky himself wrote that he would have done everything Stalin did anyway.
If you're not in orgs, you're simply not a participant. If you're not doing something, you're not a communist. You're a spectator and a non-participant.
What actually organising communists have this position? They don't. Because you're fucking wrong mate.
Stop saying holodomor dumbass it's literally the word that nazis gave to the specifically Ukrainian part of the great famine as a means of playing down the holocaust and playing down the larger famine that happened at the time. I already told you to stop being a fucking nazi.
This region had a famine every 5 years for 1000 years and this was the last ever famine to occur in the region, thanks to the soviets.
No Holodomor is largely just a compound word in Ukrainian that translates loosely as "to kill with hunger" or "hunger plague". Provide a different well known phrase to refer to this Genocide and popularize it. Additionally this phrase primarily arose in the USSR in the 1980s as domestic policy stopped censoring references to the genocide. It was Soviets who popularized the term, not Fascists.
They didn't have famines that killed 50% of the native population every 5 years. Restricting internal movement and discussion of the famines and preventing domestic and foreign aid was an intentional move designed to starve those people. And the acuteness of those famines was in large part because of Collectivism breaking the logistics of farming.
Maybe you should be more concerned that there was a whole ass genocide you were unaware of in your model implementation instead of trying to hand wave the issue away.
This nazi propaganda again. I stopped reading at the first sentence and I'm blocking you. You're a nazi and there's literally no point in conversing with someone that is so blatantly acting in bad faith. If this conversation happened on the street with basically anyone here in Manc you'd be bricked over the back of the head.