The USSR was Socialist, as is Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, etc. These countries were and are built and run by Marxists, it's safe to consider these hundreds of millions to be Communists. What "Comminists" are you thinking of that are "true Communists?"

[–] makyo@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

It was also an authoritarian dictatorship with about as many scruples as the Nazi regime. People seem to forget that saying simply ‘socialism’ ignores the other half of the equation altogether.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Declassified CIA report:

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.

A lot of the cold war propaganda about the USSR turned out to be bullshit, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you, including Domenico Losurdo.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 8 hours ago

No, not even close. The theory of Nazism and Communism as "twin evils" originates with Double Genocide Theory, a form of Holocaust trivialization and Nazi apologia. The USSR was a dictatorship of the proletariat, those oppressed were the Bourgeoisie, Tsarists, and the Nazis. It isn't a matter of simply saying "socialism," it's taking an honest look at history. In reality, there is no comparison to Nazism, which invented industrialized murder and sought to colonize Europe and the world just as Britian, France, Germany herself, and other Western countries had done to the Global South.

I suggest you read Blackshirts and Reds.

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Marx himself thought Marxists (which existed already in his lifetime) were nutties. Anyone who actually understands what Marx is saying knows that no actual revolution will result in communism. Communism will only be achieved through capitalism ie when human labor ceases to have value, only then will communism will be achieved. So in my view, the real communists (whether they know it or not) are those working to automate the world.

None of these Stalinist tyrannies represent communism. They are inherently anti-communist as they were not really egalitarian but rather Oligarchic.

Now go fuck yourself tankie.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Marx didn't think those that agreed with him were "nutties," he didn't like that people were adopting the mantle of "Marxist." Secondly, Communism can only be achieved through revolution. It is Captialism that prepares the conditions for revolution, but without revolution the Proletariat never wrests control of Capital, as they sink further and further into destitution as the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall reaches its limits.

The AES states, where the Proletariat has managed to take control, are building towards a collectively owned and planned economy. This is not yet Communism, as Communism is necessarily global, but it is Socialist and those countries like Cuba that are working on that understanding are the Marxists and Communists building Communism in the real world. Further, wealth disparity massively shrank in AES countries and their economies are more democratic than in Capitalist nations.

I really don't think it makes any sense to consider tech billionaires automating labor as "real Marxists" but those studying Marxism and building Socialism as "fake."

[–] Plebcouncilman@sh.itjust.works 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

You’re right in that I said something wrong. There will be a revolution, but one that will only happen when human labor has no value. Until them, communism is not possible and it will simply become oligarchy with rampant poverty and technological stagnation while massive government inefficiency and corruption are rampant. There is very little wealth inequality if everyone except dear leader and his generals are rich, everyone else is equally poor. There might be huge wealth disparities in the US right now but the average homeless person has a higher quality of life than almost every other country in the world, this is only possible because capitalism has allowed for the quality of life of everyone to improve as it generates wealth.

The Chinese are the only ones that actually “get it” I think, or so it would seem, even if they are still somewhat adhering to tankie tendencies.

I really don't think it makes any sense to consider tech billionaires automating labor as "real Marxists" but those studying Marxism and building Socialism as "fake."

And yet they and their employees are the only ones capable of creating the conditions for communism to be real and viable. I will reinstate my point and urge you to meditate on it: Communism will not be viable until human labor has no value.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 0 points 12 hours ago

There are a number of issues with this comment, so I think a list format for addressing them will be more clear.

Human labor-power will always have value, if you're ascribing to Marxist notions of value. What will increasingly reach no value are the commodities we produce. A fully, completely automated, self-repairing economy is not only likely fantasy, but not at all what Marx was talking about with Communism.
In AES states, poverty was dramatically reduced while technological process boomed. Using the USSR as an example, they took many "firsts" in the Space Race, such as the first man in space, first woman in space, first sattelite, and more. For poverty, it went drastically down, along with disparity, while maintaining constant and stable growth:

In the USSR, wealth disparity between the top and the bottom was around 10 times. In Tsarist Russia and the modern Russian Federation, that number reaches the hundreds to thousands. If the Soviet Officials were doing it to get individually rich, they sucked at it.

The United States is not an industrialized economy, but an Imperialist one. It uses its vast millitary power to exert pressure on the Global South in order to export Capital, it produces cheaply by super-exploiting workers in the Global South for domestic Super-Profits. Moreover, safety nets are clinging by threads, most other countries take better care of their homeless population and have much lower rates of homelessness.
The PRC is a Socialist Market Economy. They "get it" because they are applying Marxism to their present level of productive forces and rapdily building up industry. It is still heavily state owned and planned.
Restating your flawed understanding of Communism and Marx's Law of Value doesn't make it true or "authentic."