Not a communist, so no, I can't.
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 370
- Joined
- 2 mo. ago
- Posts
- 4
- Comments
- 370
- Joined
- 2 mo. ago
You don't need to convince me that capitalism is bad, I am already convinced of that— though obviously I disagree that socialism is the only path forward for Russia.
Based on what you've said, the USSR appears to have done well while it was still up and running.
But:
- The repressed groups I was talking about were queer people, not just "capitalists".
- If you're trying to say that the reason why West Europe (especially Scandinavia) is a much safer place for queer people is "imperialism", I would consider that a non-sequitur.
So long as communism leads to queer oppression (and historically it has in all of them — except Cuba which is the progressive anomaly in this regard), I will oppose it as I do not see it as "liberation". We also have very different views on what is acceptable in terms of censorship and hierarchy (which I'm not debating in this thread), so I do not see communism as offering people liberation.
What I don't understand is why the USSR just flatlined after all the success you've mentioned.
I see it as hypocritical but I digress on that.
You're still not engaging with my reasoning. I gave you reasons as to why fire is nothing like it.
Patriarchy is literally a type of hierarchy, if all hierarchy was abolished, patriarchy would too by nature of it being a type of hierarchy.
Just because coercive domination and subjugation can occur outside of hierarchy, doesn't mean hierarchy isn't the primary cause of it. As stated earlier, this is historically well-established and is a necessary outcome of hierarchy.
It's not merely "potential" or a "fear" thereof, it's a historically established pattern. If I were to describe it the way you do from historical perspectives, I'd frame it as "the necessary and natural outcome".
Apples to oranges analogy with fire. Fire doesn't subjugate people, fire doesn't put people in positions where they can belittle, abuse, or otherwise coerce others beneath them.
Again, you're not engaging with the reasoning I gave for this.
Patriarchy would not exist without hierarchy. Female Marxists existing doesn't change that.
So yeah, hierarchy is "evil". I just used that phrasing for brevity, it can be explained scientifically.
I do believe hierarchy attracts power hungry people.
Coercive domination and subjugation requires hierarchy, but I'm not sure if that is a concern for you.
Ok so the points coming to mind areas follows: The censorship in the USSR.
This doesn't seem to align with my understanding of the USSR. Didn't the USSR fail horribly, leading to its collapse? Bureaucratic corruption, inefficiency, not being able to compete internationally, and the oppression of marginalized populations (such as queer people ) had been my impression of the USSR's legacy.
As for the last point, that comes off as hypocritical since communist countries do the same thing. North Korea has executions and Cuba throws journalists in jail.
You don't need hierarchy to have a common plan, but I'll get back on the bits relating to management and time-critical aspects mentioned here later.
Not convinced on hierarchies not being exploitative. The higher up you go in the corporate ladder, the more room the person has to exploit those beneath him. You say managers do not steal surplus value, which I'm not sure is the case. Additionally, I wasn't solely referring to economic exploitation. Workplace conditions are often highly toxic and higher-ups are routinely able to get away with their abuse of those under them because of hierarchy. Hierarchy not only enables, it attracts power-hungry people who abuse it. Patriarchy is another good example of hierarchy directly causing abuse.
If you ask me, these are evil.
Their ability to do 2) is a big part of why I don't think they're the same class, and wage gaps with government officials is often much more stark with them living lifestyles that ordinary workers can't even dream of living.
I also do not believe they need good reason to do so, or to make other laws that benefit them directly or indirectly. Bureaucracy routinely does things in their interest first and foremost without it seeing much pushback.
On hierarchy:
What stops groups from sending delegates to councils of other groups' delegates? Forming councils and representative bodies is possible without hierarchy. These models can be used for federation and coordination.
In certain contexts such as time-critical crises, you may choose to follow orders from one person, such as the lead firefighter. Any power over others is limited to people giving over that power.
Horizontal infrastructure under anarchism can scale by building interconnected networks of smaller communities kept to a size that operate on direct consensus and human trust by federating those nodes.
We already maintain digital ecosystems in this way, with Linux, Git and the Fediverse being built and maintained by massive amounts of people without vertical command. Coordination with delegates sent to a council allow local syndicates to coordinate on large projects.
While scale requires structure, communication and logistics, it does not require the executive domination and subjugation that is conflated with structure.
That's the socialist definition of class, that is not how I understand class.
I didn't say it's like "starting a new club".
Calling bureaucracy "nebulous" doesn't invalidate any of the reasoning I provided.
Suggested approach: anarchism.
I didn't disregard the importance of understanding class, merely that I disagreed with the reductive socialist definition of class.
Flippanarchy @lemmy.dbzer0.com "Hierarchy is necessary" (?)
Privacy @lemmy.ml Private image browsing apps?
Privacy @lemmy.ml Proton has ties to Israel. What's a safe alternative?
Privacy @lemmy.ml Countersocial doesn't work for me.
How come Scandinavian countries are miles ahead of literally all communist countries w.r.t. queer rights (Cuba excluded)?
Simply because progressivism coincided with imperialism, doesn't mean it's because of it. Correlation does not equate to causation.
You say queer rights have improved compared to what they had before, but homosexuality is something that remains to this day significantly stigmatized outside of urban centers (Beijing, Shanghai etc which are more accepting)— when it wasn't stigmatized as much before. Though perhaps that is more owing to Christianity, I'm more privy to Japan's history than China's if we're going beyond the last century.
What's wrong with comparing them to the west? Is the west a nebulous "evil"? (See above, I don't believe it's better there due to imperialism)