246
The people before us weren't perfect. Their mistakes are blueprints to learn from and build a better world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
246 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
55835 readers
517 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Read Engels https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm
Excerpt from Stalin - the History and Critique of a Black Legend by Domenico Losurdo
Impressive demonstrations of grief accompanied Stalin's passing. In his death throes, “millions of people crowded the center of Moscow to pay their last respects” to the dying leader. On March 5th, 1953, “millions of citizens cried over his loss as if they were mourning for a loved one."1 The same reaction took place in the most remote corners of this enormous country, for example, in a “small village” that, as soon as it learned of what had happened, fell into spontaneous and collective mourning.2 The generalized consternation went beyond the borders of the USSR: “Many cried as they passed through the streets of Budapest and Prague."3Thousands of kilometers away from the socialist camp, in Israel the sorrowful reaction was also widespread: “All members of MAPAM, without exception, cried”, and this was a party in which “all the veteran leaders” and “nearly all the ex-combatants” belonged to. The suffering was mixed with fear. “The sun has set” was the title of Al Hamishmar, the newspaper of the Kibbutz movement. For a certain amount of time, such sentiments were shared by leading figures of the state and military apparatus: “Ninety officers who had participated in the 1948 war, the great war of Jewish independence, joined a clandestine armed organization that was pro-Soviet and revolutionary. Of these, eleven later became generals and one became a government minister, and are now honored as the founding fathers of Israel."4
In the West, it’s not just leaders and members of communist parties with ties to the Soviet Union who pay homage to the deceased leader. One historian (Isaac Deutscher) who was a fierce admirer of Trotsky, wrote an obituary full of acknowledgements:
In summary, despite conditioned and in part disfigured by the Asiatic and despotic legacy of Tsarist Russia, in Stalin’s USSR “the socialist ideal has an innate and solid integrity.”
In this historical evaluation there was no longer a place for Trotsky’s harsh accusations directed at the deceased leader. What sense was there in condemning Stalin as a traitor to the ideals of world revolution and as the capitulationist theorist of socialism in one country, at a time in which the new social order had expanded in Europe and in Asia and had broken “its national shell”?5 Ridiculed by Trotsky as a “small provincial man thrust into great world events, as if by a joke of history”,6 in 1950 Stalin had become, in the opinion of an illustrious philosopher (Alexandre Kojève), the incarnation of the Hegelian spirit of the world and called upon to unify and lead humanity, resorting to energetic methods, in practice combining wisdom and tyranny.7
Outside communist circles, or the communist aligned left, despite the escalating Cold War and the continued hot war in Korea, Stalin’s death brought out largely “respectful” or “balanced” obituaries in the West. At that time, “he was still considered a relatively benign dictator and even a statesman, and in the popular consciousness the affectionate memory of “uncle Joe” persisted, the great war-time leader that had guided his people to victory over Hitler and had helped save Europe from Nazi barbarity."8 The ideas, impressions and emotions of the years of the Grand Alliance hadn’t yet vanished, when―Deutscher recalled in 1948―statesmen and foreign generals were won over by the exceptional competence with which Stalin managed all the details of his war machine."9
Included among the figures “won over” was the man who, in his time, supported military intervention against the country that emerged out of the October Revolution, namely Winston Churchill, who with regards to Stalin had repeatedly expressed himself in these terms: “I like that man."10 On the occasion of the Tehran Conference in November, 1943, the British statesman had praised his Soviet counterpart as “Stalin the Great”: he was a worthy heir to Peter the Great; having saved his country, preparing it to defeat the invaders.11 Certain aspects had also fascinated Averell Harriman, the American ambassador to Moscow between 1943 and 1946, who always positively painted the Soviet leader with regard to military matters: “He appears to me better informed than Roosevelt and more realistic than Hitler, to a certain degree he’s the most efficient war leader."12 In 1944 Alcide De Gasperi had expressed himself in almost emphatic terms, having celebrated “the historic, secular and immense merit of the armies organized by the genius, Joseph Stalin." The recognition from the eminent Italian politician isn’t merely limited to the military sphere:
No less powerful or uncommon was the prestige that Stalin had enjoyed, and continued enjoying, among the great intellectuals. Harold J. Laski, a prestigious supporter of the British Labour Party, speaking in the fall of 1945 with Norberto Bobbio, had declared himself an “admirer of the Soviet Union” and its leader, describing him as someone who is “very wise."14 In that same year, Hannah Arendt wrote that the country led by Stalin distinguished itself for the “completely new and successful way of facing and solving national conflicts, of organizing different peoples on the basis of national equality”; it was a type of model, it was something “that every political and national movement should pay attention to."15
For his part, writing just before and soon after the end of World War II, Benedetto Croce recognized Stalin’s merit in having promoted freedom not only at the international level, thanks to the contribution given to the struggle against Nazi-fascism, but also in his own country. Indeed, who led the USSR was “a man gifted with political genius”, who carried out an important and positive historical role overall; with respect to pre-revolutionary Russia, “Sovietism has been an advance for freedom, just as, “in relation to the feudal regime”, the absolute monarchy was also “an advance for freedom and resulted in the greater advances that followed." The liberal philosopher’s doubts were focused on the future of the Soviet Union; however, these same doubts, by contrast, further highlighted the greatness of Stalin: he had taken the place of Lenin, in such a way that a genius had been followed by another, but what sort of successors would be given to the USSR by “Providence”?16
You understand so little you would likely have to unlearn effectively everything you "know" to even approach 0 understanding.
Fuck you first of all you massively racist fucking loser. You don't get to be suspicious whitey.
Maybe, if you have no fucking idea what capitalism, socialism or communism actually mean.
Not understanding the firewall award.
Gulag archipelago reader award. (A book so terribly it's been disavowed by everyone involved bar the main author)
Depends do you mean the real issues that occured during the crackdown on ETIM or the Zenz/US state department fantasy.
Views stuck decades in the past award.
Categorically not a massacre but a clash between violent rioters and the military acting as riot police at the time, also funnily enough none of the violence was actually in the square.
I don't think you know what this word means
"My country is evil and constantly lies but I also believe everything they say about their ideological enemies"
How does the firewall work if you don't mind me asking?
Just to clarify given the context do you mean the how as in the actual mechanism or the why it was put in place etc?
Probably how it works. To my understanding it was put in place to keep out western companies and media preying upon people? But I'm honestly very ignorant on most of this
On how it works:
It’s effectively an IP/domain/protocol blacklist. So if you break the rules for example by refusing to host Chinese user data on servers in China as is required by law you get out on the list and your site is blocked. Other things blocked are domains commonly used for spam e.g. .ml is blocked by the firewall as it was a free domain commonly used for spam. So I'm using a VPN as all .ml sites are blocked (as far as I'm aware, there might be some who petitioned their way off but I don't know)
On why it was put in place:
The firewall was created to foster and protect China’s fledgling digital infrastructure and data sovereignty. Many countries regulate foreign platforms and data flows. China built its own ecosystem instead of depending on foreign companies. We have seen what happens when foreign platforms operate without local oversight: Facebook facilitating genocide in Myanmar, coordinated anti-vax disinformation campaigns in Southeast Asia, algorithm-driven radicalization, etc. The firewall makes those kinds of external influence operations harder or close to impossible to run at scale.
Thank you for the explanation!
Does it also keep information from China getting to other places? Or is that more of the corpos and other countries keeping China's news and what not out of Western spaces? I find it very hard to find things out of rare cases like when I was on Red Note for a bit. I wasn't sure if the firewall had anything to do with that or if its more western influences, or a bit of both?
No the firewall is one-way generally speaking. The fact foreign news agencys need a license to report in China probably doesn't help but it is almost entirely down to the fact that corpos and the countries they own don't actually want to report factual information about China and much prefer NED funded NGOs and but at what cost speculation about whatever China announces.
Yes, because the US started a trade war with them because they can't compete (in EVs also), and a few of their vassal states followed suit.
Sources on this? The PRC only blocks western surveillance platforms because they're incredibly dangerous to let them loose in your country. They're one of the few countries not naive enough to let facebook and google take over their social media landscape.
https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/socialism_faq.md#what-about-the-tiananmen-square-massacre
Come on, you can't (I presume) ban someone and then ask them for sources.
I banned after this, reading further down and seeing them get more and more virulently racist.
I would define a transition from capitalism to socialism as
Merchants & lawyers out of power
and engineers (laborers) & academics into power,
which is what China has.
The US isn't failing true capitalism while still secretly being feudalistic,
just because land lords and TV evangelists exist,
while George Bush Jr, eldest son of George Bush Senior, became leader of the land in 2000.
China just had a capitalistic phase due to Deng's reforms,
just like the US had a socialist phase due to Roosevelt's reforms.
Both of those did not last, because ultimately those in power are
socialist for China (engineers & academics)
and capitalist for the US (merchants & lawyers).
The capitalist phase is already waning under Xi,
just like the socialist phase did under Nixon did for the US.
Lol. Do you really use such language with your own nation?
If not, you are selective and that begs the question as to why
and what pattern would emerge out of what you are selective to.
I highly doubt you ever said something along the lines of
"The EU/UK is in good cahoots with the US",
despite the fact that EU NATO chief Rutte openly called Trump "daddy".
I don't see Putin doing that with Xi. Putin is not even running
a socialist country.
And Putin talks about a multipolar world in which Russia is one of those poles.
Criticizing USA doesn't grant you a license to be racist. Also, feeling patriotic towards your own country isn't wrong.
the easiest first step in ensuring that the usa and it's ilk change their tune is to stop repeating the propaganda the usa already admitted to manufacturing thanks to the freedom of information act.
i'm referring to stuff like this:
if you're to repeat their propaganda, you should atleast be getting paid for it.
*i'm going to be doing graphene too and i'm waiting for motorola.
this "both sides" argument is indicative of the extent to which western propaganda has impacted your thought process.
the FOIA litmus test will easily tell you whether or not your source is biased. since the late 1970's the FOIA has effectively been forcing the us gov't to publicly admit that it manufactured propaganda about many things including north korea as an "authoritarian" state.
if your source still characterizes north korea as an authoritarian state; then know that they're giving you propaganda that the us gov't has already effectively said is fake -- in writing -- since 1979.
Given that you think the US and Canada are only as bad as Russia, you're certainly no hater of them; if anything, you have a rosey picture of them. Further supported by the fact you think 250 people dying in clashes 40 years ago even registered in comparison to the millions killed by the West since.
I wrote a more direct reply to this, but I have come to realise that in this situation it would most likely be unproductive. You appear to be a very new leftist of some description: you seem to like the idea of socialism or communism, but you do not yet seem to have a firm grasp of what they actually entail. So instead of arguing point by point, I am going to explain what socialism is, why China has been socialist since 1949, and then add some book and article recommendations so you can begin studying the question more seriously on your own.
To start, we have to define a term that is commonly used but rarely properly understood: the state. Many people use “the state” and “the government” interchangeably, but this is not accurate. The state is specifically the organised force by which class antagonisms are mediated through the rule of one class over others. The government, on the other hand, broadly refers to the administration, coordination, planning, record-keeping, infrastructure management, public decision-making, and the organisation of social production required by advanced societies. This distinction will be important later.
Next, it is important to define socialism. Socialism is the transitionary period between capitalism and communism. It still contains many contradictions inherited from capitalism: classes, class struggle, uneven development, commodity production, wages, bureaucracy, ideological struggle, and often limited market mechanisms. Socialism is not “when everything is already communist.” It is the period in which the proletariat holds political power and uses that power to transform society, develop the productive forces, suppress reaction, and gradually overcome the material basis of class society.
This stands in contrast to communism, where class society has been abolished as a meaningful social reality. Communism is classless because there are no longer opposed classes standing in antagonistic relation to one another (as only a single class, the proletariat, remain after the other classes have been proletarianised during the socialist period). It is stateless because, once class antagonisms have disappeared, the state as an instrument of class rule no longer has a function and withers away. This of course does not mean that organisation, administration, planning, or collective decision-making (the government) disappear. It means that the coercive state as an instrument of class domination disappears.
At this point you might ask: if contradictions remain under socialism, how is it different from capitalism? That is a reasonable question. The answer rests on one primary and one secondary characteristic.
The primary question is: which class commands the state? Under socialism, the proletariat commands the state through the people’s democratic dictatorship, also called the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie commands the state, which communists refer to as the dictatorship of capital (even if they have a liberal democratic cascade).
The secondary question is: which mode of ownership holds primacy, public ownership or private ownership? This is secondary because public ownership under the dictatorship of capital functions as state capitalism, while public ownership under the dictatorship of the proletariat is part of socialist construction. Ownership forms matter, but they cannot be separated from the class character of political power.
Now, with this groundwork laid, we can finally look properly at the Chinese situation.
China has been socialist since October 1, 1949, because the old landlord-bureaucrat-comprador state was destroyed and replaced by a people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class through the Communist Party. The Communist Party of China has more than 100 million members as of the end of 2024 (slightly over 1/14 people). The commanding heights of the economy were brought under public ownership and workers state direction. The new state was built to suppress reaction, defend sovereignty, develop the productive forces, and transform society.
In China, the bourgeoisie still exists, but it does not rule as a class. Capitalists can own firms in non-commanding sectors, make profits, and accumulate wealth within limits, because developing the productive forces still serves necessary social goals at China’s current stage of development. But they do not command the state, the army, the land system, the central banking system, or the strategic direction of the economy. They do not stand above the people or above the people's organised political instrument, the Communist Party, as a sovereign power.
When capital conflicts with the long-term interests of socialist construction, it is disciplined, subordinated, investigated, broken up, fined, or otherwise brought to heel. Jack Ma and Ant Group is a useful example: its $37 billion IPO was suspended in 2020 and Jack Ma was made step away from public life as he attempted to put his profit before the benefits of the people by pushing for loosening banking regulations so he could provide micro loans. Foreign capitalists spent years crying about this as it showed the truth capital holds no power in China.
To put it briefly: China is socialist because the proletarian-led state holds political power, commands the strategic economy, subordinates capital to national and social development, suppresses reactionary threats, and continues the long transition out of capitalism under conditions of imperialist encirclement, uneven development, and a still-existing world capitalist system.
It would also be remiss not to mention that much of what you “know” about China has been manufactured through a mix of exaggeration, selective framing, omission, and outright lies. For example, you have likely heard about “996” as if it represents Chinese labour law or the normal working life of the whole country. In reality, 996 was an issue in ~40 of the large tech firms around the 2019 tech boom and was quickly ruled illegal which it now has been for half a decade.
For a proper explanation on how this kind of ideological manufacture happens, I would recommend reading Michael Parenti’s Inventing Reality.
Further reading recommendations:
I have to a plug @Cowbee@lemmy.ml and their beginner reading list
But for my recommendations more directly related to the topic at hand I would recommend:
I understand having such a long list dumped on you is likely off-putting however that's the unfortunate truth of being a real socialist/communist, constant reading, education and investigation is a must. If you have any specific questions on any of them I can try help you if need be.
Excellent write-up I'd like to point to one thing though
This doesn't mean anything to a westerner. What westerners hear is "The communist party officials presume/claim to speak in the interest of the working class with no direct input from them". Since this is what almost every party in the west has done since parliaments became a thing. The ones that didn't aren't included in textbooks. And since you're speaking positively of such a party you must be "shilling" for them. I know adding the "how" of how workers shape and influence the state would make your comment even longer, but as it is to most it's just an unbelievable, meaningless phrase.
Yeah I 100% agree but also felt that it was long enough that it was 50/50 they'd actually read past the first few lines anyway so I could clarify in any follow-ups if they did and if they didn't then it was fine as is anyway.
In china, the state controls capital. In America, capital controls the state
It really is that simple. A market does not make capitalism ffs