The only economic system that works is sending me all your money via western union so I can keep it safe for you.
You forgot the "or else" part.
Except the transitional stage often leads right back to fudalism/oligarchy.
Capitalism is an oligarchy
Somewhat, but democratic capitalism is a whole lot less oligarchical than straight up oligarchy.
Capitalism cannot be democratic. It's better than feudalism, but ultimately serves Capitalists.
Again, how does what you linked connect to what I said?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
also 'fudalism' is a funny typo considering this is F.U.D. about socialism and communism
I don't get how what you linked relates to what I said. Could you clarify?
the United States expanded the geographic scope of its actions beyond traditional area of operations, Central America and the Caribbean. Significant operations included the United States and United Kingdom–planned 1953 Iranian coup d'état, the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion targeting Cuba, and support for the overthrow of Sukarno by General Suharto in Indonesia. In addition, the U.S. has interfered in the national elections of countries, including Italy in 1948,[1] the Philippines in 1953, Japan in the 1950s and 1960s[2][3] Lebanon in 1957,[4] and Russia in 1996.[5] According to one study, the U.S. performed at least 81 overt and covert known interventions in foreign elections during the period 1946–2000.[6] According to another study, the U.S. engaged in 64 covert and six overt attempts at regime change during the Cold War.
How does that information inform whether the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat tends to lead to socialism or back to oligarchy.
Name one time when that's happened.
USSR and China
Neither of those countries returned to a feudal system. Where are the nobles, with entrenched legal privileges, with titles passed down on a hereditary basis, commanding their own armies? What a ridiculous claim.
That's why I said /oligarchy. Both became oligarchys.
Feudalism specifically would be more north Korea.
Does North Korea have the noble class I described? Do you have any evidence that such a class exists?
Yeah, it has a king and royal family.
That's both not true and also not what I asked. The UK has a king and noble family, does that make it a feudal system?
Mostly not because they don't have the political power.
There are other monarchies in the world today that do hold political power. That doesn't mean that they're governing over a feudal system. The noble system I described is one of the defining characteristics of feudalism.
Okay, in the oversimplified graphic of the meme, I was including absolute monarchy under feudalism, since I thought it was closer to that than capitalism.
Right, because you're doing zero analysis of the economic or political structures involved and playing fast and loose with terminology.
Because that's what the original meme did. I was trying to fit within it's framework.
Child brain child behavior
They're the largest landholders in the entire country. Holy shit you're fucking dumb.
Does it? Is Oligarchy just when you have a government but no or little Capitalism?
Elmer Fudalism
Any system which requires government coercion over individuals is never going to be feasible because the greedy will always find a way into power. That's why it hasn't worked for communism, and that's why it hasn't worked for capitalism. What we need is a government specifically set up to protect individuals from corporations. The more we can empower individuals and the common worker, the better off we will be. Communism is not the answer to that, neither is capitalism.
Why do you say Communism isn't the answer? It does empower people and the xommon worker and protects individuals from corporations.
Because every time it has existed it just leads to a huge amount of government power without actually empowering the people. The people may be protected from corporations but they are not protected from their own government.
The government is run by the people, it's a complete restructuring away from Capitalist ownership into public ownership. The people are not distinct from the government.
Shifting from an economy run by competing warlords to one owned and run by the people is indeed a vast improvement.
And how is that worked out? Every time it's been tried the people who are in the government take all the power and rule with tyranny over their citizens. Communism only empowers the people in the minds of idealists who think that it works. Every time it's actually implemented it's just dictatorships under fancy names.
None of what you just said is historically accurate. The USSR, for example, had Soviet Democracy in place. Yes, the government did have the power, because that power was taken from Capitalists and given to the public, which was managed by a Worker State. The idea that the USSR was a "dictatorship" is wrong, even the CIA said that the idea that the USSR was run by 1 dude and his whims was false (pdf download link, fair warning).
An excerpt from said doc if you don't want to download it:
"Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain. However, it does not appear that any of the present leaders will rise to the statue of Lenin and Stalin, so that it will be safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along the lines of what is called collective leadership"
The idea that the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc. are/were just "Dictatorships with fancy names" makes no attempt to do actual, material analysis of the structures in place in these countries.
Go watch some documentsaries about USSR, north korea, khmer rouge, and china then talk. USSR collapsed, Khmer rogue executed 1/4 of its's population and north korea is a nation of brainwashesd people thinking their leader doesn't poop (I don't know enough to talk about China, but they have an economy)
Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.
The USSR and China both drastically improved metrics like life expectancy, literacy rates, reduced poverty, eliminated famine, and generally uplifted the poor when compared with Fuedal Russia and Nationalist China. They had numerous issues and tragedies, yes, but overall did very well for its people.
Please find a genuine source saying that North Koreans don't think their leader poops. Or, just watch a video of some Aussies going to North Korea to get a haircut. North Korea is certainly no paradise, but it's also one of the most propagandized against in the western world.
Khmer Rouge was backed by the US and was lead by fascists who rejected Marx, like the Nazis.
I think that's a highly misleading and highly reductionist interpretation. The Khmer Rouge was supported by the US, but mostly after the conflict had ended.
The Khmer Rouge was overwhelmingly supported by the CCP, especially during the Vietnam war, and before the Chinese invasion of Vietnam afterwards.
Also, PolPot wasn't criticized for his diversion from Marxism until the 80's, well after the most turbulent times in Cambodia. And even then Deng Xiaoping only criticised the Khmer Rouge for engaging in "deviations from Marxism-Leninism"
The only person on the left who accused him of being a fascist was Hoxha, but that was after his schism with the maoist. So to him any communist Asian was basically a barbaric fascist.
I don't believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn't accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.
The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment, my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn't a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.
China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.
don't believe I made the point that contemporaries criticized their fascism outright, I made the point that they were fascist and rejected Marx. Calling them Communist isn't accurate in any way, plus they were stopped by the Vietnamese Communists.
I think what's pertinent to the original argument was that they were communist while the Khmer Rouge were committing their atrocities. Labeling a country that transitioned from communism to fascism as a purely fascist government is misleading and reductive.
Also, being opposed to a communist government does not mean you're automatically a fascist. As we know communist China attacked communist Vietnam right after the US Vietnam war.
The history of geopolitics in Asia is very complicated and cannot be summed up in a short Lemmy comment
It's no more complicated than the history of European geopolitics. As an Asian person, I get told this by western people a lot. I think it's just a hold over from the western interpretation of the east being based in mystery. Also, the complications of any topic does not validate the type of misleading/reductive comment you made.
my point was to distance Pol Pot from Communism, because he wasn't a Communist and denounced Communism, nor did he implement Socialism.
I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50's, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.
Pol Pot didn't really divert from communism until the 80's and that was a last ditch effort to get the west to support his failing regime. I don't particularly believe that "We chose communism because we wanted to restore our nation. We helped the Vietnamese, who were communist. But now the communists are fighting us. So we have to turn to the West and follow their way." constitutes as denouncing Marxism.
China, the USSR, and North Korea were/are Socialist, and should be judged as such, for better and for worse. Pol Pot and the gang were not, so judging them as though they were is just silly.
You haven't supported the argument that the Khmer Rouge were never communist...... Now I'm willing to compromise and say they transitioned away from communism as did the Russians, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they were communist at some point.
How exactly was Pol Pot/Khmer Rouge not communist in the 50s-70's?
I think this is completely inaccurate depending on what time you are talking about. I would say Pol Pot was probably one of the most ardent communist of the 50's, it was just a weird type of agrarian communism. And in the regions he controlled he did attempt to construct a classless agrarian socialist society.
He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism. We do not consider the Nazis to be Socialist either. His "agrarian Communism" was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism.
If you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist. Rather than doing that, Pol Pot stopped pretending and denounced Communism altogether.
He had denounced Marx and created a form of Feudalism.
When did he denounce Marx, do you have a quote?
Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.
His "agrarian Communism" was an expliciy rejection of Marxism from the get-go, as his concept of deindustrialization goes directly against Marxism
Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.
you have nothing in common with Communism except the name, you have to justify why you believe yourself to be Communist.
Lol, that's not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80's as well.
I think it's pretty obvious that we're just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.
When did he denounce Marx, do you have a quote?
Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist, thus he denounced them later rather than attempt to continue to claim Marxist influence.
Also, the same accusations of feudalism can be charged at North Korea.
In what manner? Vibes?
Or as the maoist say, Marxism with Chinese characteristics. The same charges could have been levied at aspects of the cultural revolution. Different forms of revolution are required for different forms of societal structures and limitations. The vanguard approach is not exactly going to fly in a mostly agrarian culture.
More vibes, lol. Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!
Lol, that's not up to you to interpret. You are conflating nearly 50 years of history to a single decade. I could make very similar arguments about the Soviet Union based on just the 80's as well.
I am not. I am aware that Pol Pot distanced himself from Marxism publicly afterwards, but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.
I think it's pretty obvious that we're just trying to distance communism from a regime no one can morally defend. Nearly all the arguments you made have been levied at China, Korea, Russia, or Cuba at some point, but we tend to defend them because the ends mostly justify the means.
More vibes.
Not off the top of my head, no, but my point is that the principles themselves were not Marxist nor Communist
So, just a vibe check then?
In what manner? Vibes?
Lol, in the same way as the Khmer Rouge....you never extrapolated how they were feudal to begin with.
Mao was not a deinustrialist, nor was he a nationalist. Yes, different forms of revolution are required, but intentionally setting the clock on progress backwards, rather than forwards, is inherently a reactionary position, which became self admitted!
First of all, I don't think anyone can rightly claim Mao wasn't a nationalist. He was an ardent anti imperialist and he wasn't an ethno-nationalist, but still a nationalist at heart. Secondly progress is relative to the revolution, Cambodia prior to the revolution was for the most part dependent on substance farming. Adapting a centralized apparatus to control the economy is still progress.
but he was never operating under Marxist principles. At most, he took inspiration from the Chinese revolution with regards to the agrarian focus, but instead focused on deindustrialization and nationalism.
They didn't deindustrialze, they were never industrialized to begin with.
More vibes.
Hilarious considering your arguments have been completely vibe based. Even when I ask you specify your claims.... Nope just vibes.
To be fair, those failed because capitalists took charge claiming to be socialists. Not saying there is a surefire way to prevent that from happening every time.
Yes, because the revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat tears down the checks and balances that usually exist to avoid people grabbing power, and instead attracts power hungry people.
A democratic gradual implementation of socialism is a much safer was to achieve many of the same outcomes, like what some European countries are doing.
Revolution and the historical application of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat have resulted in more democratic institutions being put in place than what previously existed.
Social Democracies are not Socialist, nor are they trying to be Socialist. They still depend on Capitalism, and exploitation of the Global South. They are also seeing rising disparity and weakening worker protections over time, because reforming a Capitalist state into something better over a gradual process is extremely difficult.
History's most notable democratically elected Socialist was couped in 2 years, Salvador Allende, with the help of the US.
I need you to shut the fuck up until you investigate just a single fucking thing you say. "Achieve many of the same outcomes" just holy shit. Collaboration and liberation are the same if you really think about it!
That hasn't happend, historically. Unless you mean the Khmer Rouge, but that was more fascist than anything else, and the leadership explicitly rejected Marx.
