Anonymous #3 25w

I also honestly don't really want any government collusion with industry besides to help restore and protect the environment

6

Anonymous #3 25w

Communism doesn’t mean totalitarian. You can have communism and democracy, just like we have capitalism and an authoritarian regime in the US rn

6

Anonymous #3 25w

It also isn’t government “collusion” with industry, because the government and industry would be owned and controlled by the common people. It’s collective ownership and decision making

8

Anonymous OP 25w

You can't really have communism when people can just vote it away because that is what they will do

1

Anonymous #5 25w

It is government collusion with industry, they are supposed to be entirely separate groups.

0

Anonymous #3 25w

Says who? Are you the absolute authority on government and industry? And if so, do you oppose the subsidies given to large American corporations? That’s government collusion with industry, no?

6

Anonymous #3 25w

Government collusion with industry is literally happening in America as we speak, except the corporations are the ones controlling the government.

4

Anonymous OP 25w

Yeah and despite that being on a much smaller scale than nationalizing every industry in the country, the collusion has already led to serious fucking problems

-1

Anonymous #2 25w

Yeah I do oppose mass subsidization for the most part, and especially bailouts given to major corporations where it's not 100% necessary

5

Anonymous #3 25w

Hey, I appreciate the consistency.

4

Anonymous #3 25w

Funny because Smith talks about that in Wealth of Nations. The whole “laissez faire” bullshit about business and government being separate from one another yet you’ll see that Elon dicksuck on here talk about how privatization of roadways and making air a commodity are freaking epic bacon sauce!

10

Anonymous #3 25w

We’re led to believe that dictatorship of the proletariat (which is found in Marxist-Leninist led socialist states) is the same kind of dictatorship as something in Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, or even something like in Saudi Arabia. They’re not the same at all.

6

Anonymous #7 25w

I really don't care how similar or dissimilar they are, both want to use state power to kill people and therefore are bad.

0

Anonymous #3 25w

And liberal “democracies” don’t?

0

Anonymous #7 25w

A democracy can live with change, a dictatorship cannot survive it.

1

Anonymous #3 25w

Can it though? If the people elect an “authoritarian” government that then removes democratic institutions, then that “democracy” effectively dies.

2

Anonymous #7 25w

If that were true than Germany wouldn't exist

0

Anonymous #7 25w

Plus we are asking if it can change, which it can. It can also fail to change, but this still gives us better odds than something that cannot change in the first place.

1

Anonymous #3 25w

Except Germany’s institutions are being worn down now and also, they constantly arrest people for exercising free speech (such as those who criticize Israel). That is not democratic whatsoever.

1

Anonymous #7 25w

Yes, it's a bit of a Keynesian thing. Everybody takes little concessions and things that they want/need from the other side, even if ideologically they should oppose it.

0

Anonymous #7 25w

Still, in the same way that China is "communist" despite having free markets, Germany is a "liberal democracy" despite its controls on free speech.

3

Anonymous #3 25w

Except when Germany allows a party that calls for violent mass deportations of people based on ethnicity, religion, and national origin, it becomes much less of an issue of freedom of speech and more of the rise of fascism. This shows how weak “democracy” in Germany is but it has always been this way, starting back from its existence as West Germany.

1

Anonymous #3 25w

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, like in China or Cuba. Free speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion are all allowed but are restricted to protect all people (not just who the government agrees with).

4

Anonymous #7 25w

Note that the overwhelming majority of the people voting for AfD are in the post Soviet region

0

Anonymous #3 25w

Now this could be for a number of reasons, but I'll list a few that I suspect played a major role. 1) The people there are used to a strongman leader, or "dictatorship of the proletariat" as you prefer, and naturally gravitate towards the politics they are familiar with. 2) These areas are some of the poorer regions, and they would like to externalize their economic issues to stuff like immigration and lacking national identity

0

Anonymous #3 25w

Yes, because it is a poorer region due to the capitalist government’s failure to help them assimilate after they were illegally annexed by West Germany in 1990. This is a common trend of disenfranchised people in poorer regions blaming economic distress on immigrants/refugees as opposed to their corrupt government. This is literally how the Tea Party and then the MAGA movement came into existence.

1

Anonymous #3 25w

And the dictatorship of the proletariat is exclusively a Marxist-Leninist concept. They lost that in 1990 and with it, they lost their jobs, many of their homes, social security, pensions, etc.

1

Anonymous #7 25w

They would have lost those things anyways, Russia is no longer a socialist union.

0

Anonymous #3 25w

It is, though Russia did bring back the right to housing. However, focusing exclusively on socialist states, China, Vietnam, and Cuba all preserved those things after the Cold War ended long after East Germany or the Soviet Union collapsed. They never introduced liberal democracies but they kept these policies to help their citizens.

1

Anonymous #7 25w

So since they kept those policies, would you call them resistant to change?

0

Anonymous #3 25w

Not at all, especially when it comes to social issues for example! In 2019, Cuba updated its constitution (after a national referendum) that recognized small businesses, formally prohibited discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation. This also, helped push for the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2022, which is something that many liberal democratic countries still haven’t legalized yet.

1

Anonymous #3 25w

Those policies that I mentioned earlier however, were preserved because they serve a beneficial purpose to helping the average civilian. I mean, would you consider a state removing welfare programs in the spirit of change progressive?

1

Anonymous #7 25w

The US did the whole civil rights thing in the 60s and same sex marriage a while back but as for the second part I think it depends on your viewpoint

0

Anonymous #7 25w

I don't really think that the US' welfare programs are great or work as they should so removing them would probably be progress towards a goal of bettering them, if we were to then replace them

1

Anonymous #3 25w

But your point was that Marxist-Leninist states are resistant to change, not liberal democracies. I provided an example of one accepting a significant social change to the point of signing it into law. And if you want to get into the United States (which is considered a “democratic” country) specifically, we could talk about the current erosion of both of those things now.

1

Anonymous #3 25w

And for a countries where they do work, like the ones I mentioned?

1

Anonymous #7 25w

Yes, I think taking 6 extra decades to have their civil rights movement is definitely an example of being resistant to change

0

Anonymous #3 25w

Except allowing multiple changes and then legalizing them disproves that theory. Meanwhile, the US is eroding both of those things. Or how about the “democratic” countries that never allowed them at all, like Japan? Yet somehow they legalized marriage to fictional characters… Are they not resistant to change?

1

Anonymous #7 25w

The US already changed their mind and then changed it back in the time it took Cuba to change it once. Less resistant to change.

0

Anonymous #7 25w

Allowing fictional characters to marry people in real life, definitely also an example of change.

0

Change is not directional

0

Anonymous #3 25w

The United States rolling back those protections is not progressive or allowing change. That’s regression and quite literally resisting change for the sake of preserving “American society”.

1

Anonymous #3 25w

Then Cuba allowing it and legalizing it is an example of change, whether you admit it or not.

1

Anonymous #7 25w

One could say they are changing their stance from progressivism to nationalism

0

Anonymous #7 25w

Yet it would still be changed

0

Anonymous #3 25w

You can’t say a country is in favor of or against change simply based on how long it took but then excuse another country for now allowing that change that all. That’s being a hypocrite.

1

Anonymous #7 25w

That'd be true if the 60s were some localized civil rights movement in the USA, but it was completely global, grassroots and widespread.

0

Anonymous #7 25w

Seems like Cuba just missed it because they were/are resistant to change

0

Anonymous #3 25w

And the US government only allowed Civil Rights because they were forced to in the 60s. If they were actually open to it, they wouldn’t have have tried to assassinate MLK (and whitewash his legacy after he was murdered), actually assassinate Huey Newton, Operate COINTELPRO, commit the MOVE bombing, introduce crack into black neighborhoods, incarcerate black and brown people disproportionately, etc. The only reason they accepted it at all is because they were under international pressure

1

Anonymous #3 25w

Cuba made those reforms under no pressure whatsoever and did nothing to undermine those pushing for it.

1

Anonymous #7 25w

Well admittedly the USA was becoming a bit more socialist and authoritarian during the 40s-60s so that makes complete sense why they were resistant to that change

0

Anonymous #3 25w

Define socialism

3

Anonymous #3 25w

Now this is just historical revisionism my guy. You’re ignoring a massive elephant in the room: McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare. The US was always authoritarian and it still is now.

1

Anonymous #2 25w

When the government and big industries start to have gay sex and butt fuck each other

0

Anonymous #7 25w

I'm not really, FDR's social programs were definitely a step towards socialism despite the government's outward appearance of being incredibly anti communist

0

Anonymous #3 25w

that is not what socialism is, that’s just state control of industry

5

Anonymous #3 25w

You mean to tell me, that the whole time you’ve been making your argument, you’ve been misinformed about what these specific concepts are?

6

Anonymous #7 25w

of course, it’s America

9

Anonymous #8 24w

Yup, the change would be gradual but it’s definitely possible. We wouldn’t become communist overnight. It would be more like adapting communism one step at a time, and in our case it would start with heavily taxing the rich, then making things like healthcare, housing, food and water, public transport, easily accessible for everyone and most of these would become free as we go on. If the US was to start working towards communism, it would be kind of like what mamdani is doing now but better.

1