Afaik this happened with every single instance of a communist country. Communism seems like a pretty good idea on the surface, but then why does it always become autocratic?

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Because there was never anything communist about these states in any way whatsoever.

    Communism is a state (as in a social, political and economic condition, not a government). None of these states ever reached this condition, and, therefore, was never communist. And, one could argue, that their development literally went the opposite way to what could be called communist with a straight face. As the anarchist Bakunin famously said, “the people’s boot is still a boot.”

    This is why the Maoist-types call this shit “democratic centralism,” which is essentially just double-speak for “what the party says goes.”

    This does not make the idea of communism invalid - but it’s still as perfectly vague as ever, unfortunately.

    • Communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      slight correction, you have state and government backwards.

      Communism is a stateless, classless, currencyless society in which the workers own the means of production.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    First, and above all else, there are assholes (US) who will prevent you from having nice things. Democracy is the easiest vector to let CIA/money get a corrupt asshole into power. Democracy tends to be a fiction anyway. Money/CIA/Media control is just part of the reason. Should you let corrupt assholes vote or run for power?

    A country that has an army has dictatorial power, whether there is a theater of elections or not. An autocratic chain of command controls it, and if you don’t behave, regardless of your constitution, you get smacked by the army.

    In the US, there is communism for the corporatist oligarchy. Government they own will protect them from competition and bail them out when they fail. The CIA/media defines the communists as anyone who is not as pro business as the most pro business corporatist oligarch. US is a pure dictatorship in that Israel first corporatist oligarchy is guaranteed to win every seat/election, or 95%+ of the seats anyway. Every NATO country has a CIA allegiant party leader is also guaranteed to produce a CIA allegiant government. CIA vets all appointments to EU government to be pro US dictatorial NATO. IMF has 50%+ of votes all from US colonies.

    Celebrating media simplifications of Democracy vs. non-US-compliant is the wrong metric to apply to nations. Industrial policy meant to promote equitable prosperity or defense from Imperialist forces determined to subjugate them are more important to a nation than what US media describes them as. “Everyone” loved Russia when they had Yeltsin as a puppet privatizing everything cheaply to US interests, just as they love Zelensky for the same. Ukraine, since US coup, is an apartheid ethnostate, which cannot qualify for any objective definition of democracy (we praise it for it anyway), and recently has suspended all elections.

  • SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Equating all socialism with the authoritarian regimes of the 20th century oversimplifies a complex political tradition.

    Dictatorial tendencies are not intrinsic to socialism but are contingent on specific historical and political contexts.

    Russia: The Bolsheviks’ turn to authoritarianism was partly due to the civil war, external invasions, and a lack of democratic traditions. These circumstances led to the consolidation of power to preserve the revolution, not as an inevitable feature of socialist theory.

    In other contexts, socialist movements (e.g., in Scandinavia) have successfully implemented social democratic policies without authoritarianism.

    The role of individual leaders and political choices in shaping socialist experiments. Figures like Lenin and Stalin made decisions that prioritized centralized control, which deviated from the principles of worker self-management and democratic participation.

    These deviations were not a necessary outcome of socialism but reflected the particular decisions and dynamics of those historical moments. So a small sample size of major socialist states and people cloud judgement.

    External hostility often pushed socialist regimes toward authoritarian measures. For example, the USSR faced significant opposition from capitalist countries, which influenced its militarization and political centralization. This external pressure created a siege mentality that undermined the potential for democratic governance.

    Democratic socialism has thrived in various countries, showing that socialism can coexist with democratic principles. Examples include the welfare states of Scandinavia, where socialism has enhanced equality and social welfare without undermining political freedoms.

  • _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because people suck ass, and to successfully go from capitalism to socialism and then to communism, you need a whole population that puts the needs of the many above their own selfish desires. It’s not impossible, but it’s gonna be hard to truly accomplish.

  • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Hate to break the news, but it appears capitalism is also heading in that direction.

    • Natanox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      The greater the income disparity, the stronger authoritarianism becomes, the more fascistic it becomes. It’s always the same, which is why it has to be held in check, something the USA outspokenly do not want to do. Communism, Maoism, Xiism etc. are just taking a shorter route to authoritarianism.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The myth that Capitalism is immune to dictatorships was Cold War propaganda. Capitalism actually shows just how good a well established Democracy works to prevent Dictatorship. Because the defining trait of Capitalism is to concentrate wealth in the most efficient manner and money often equals political power.

      There were plenty of Capitalist dictators during the Cold War and off the top of my head there’s still Saudi Arabia with a Monarchy.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    The word “communism” means a specific social arrangement, but is misused to denounce things people don’t like. Similar to the word “slavery” today.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because extremes don’t work.

    From what I’ve seen over the past 100 years, pure capitalist societies fail (hello Americans!) just lie pure communist societies (hello Russia!)

    What works well are free societies that mix strong capitalism systems to fund strong social systems and safety nets (hello, north west Europe!)

    • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      You’re being downvoted probably because your take is unscholarly, but it is not wrong.

      Marx predicts the withering of the state by developing democratic socialism further and further until capital and its hoarders are fully enclosed. Northern Europe is a good example of this trend on the long term, and this is as predicted.

      I think a lot of ideologues have an element of religiosity to their adoption of marxist analysis and that leads to religious timelines: The End Is At Hand.

      But it’s not. Our lifespans are short compared with history. Late industrial capitalism will wither, and information capitalism will be further developed, before capital is enclosed by democratic development. Just waiting for how crazy genetics tech will make things… but I think we have to get through the fundamental questions that ownership of biology poses before we see the capacity for economic phase shift. History is accelerating, so…?

      • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Gotta love how you talk about me being unscholarly, yet you literally pretend you can predict the future exactly

        • SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          OK to be specific the USA is not pure capitalist as it has a huge number of public assets and social services, and the soviets were nowhere near pure communist, a long ways away from a stateless society run by a proletariat, more like state monopoly capitalism. Anyone who has studied the topic might be inclined to downvote such claims.

          Anyway I was defending you not attacking, being pissy won’t help.

          • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Of course the US is not 100 capitalistic not was the USSR 100% communist.

            Having said that, to clarify, the US is WAY too much capitalistic and needs to tone it down vastly. The rich upperclass is not happy about that idea, of course

            Russia wasn’t 100% communistic, and never could be because real communism will beber work as the vast majority of the population won’t want it. There is a reason why the purges from when communism started there ended with so many murders. Get rid of those that oppose communism, then get rid of those that oppose all those murders too. Anyone wanting “real” Communism really should watch “the chekist” as a good example of what is to come.

            Like it or not, capitalism is by far the most successful system of driving humanity forward. However, you need to control it, you need a lot of strict laws in place to keep it from spinning out of control. Use a controlled capitalist system to fund and support a strong socialist network on top of that and you’ll end up with great countries

  • splonglo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Well it didn’t happen in every case. In the UK socialists became a big faction within the post war labour party and created the NHS. Almost every other country in Europe has a similar story with the creation of their own healthcare systems. Russia and China have never been democracies at any point in their history so maybe that has more to do with it than socialist and communist ideas.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because it is not human nature and has to be forced on people. Eventually even those who are in charge of it fall into the normal human nature of social structures and such.

  • bonus_crab@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Because it was spread by a totalitarian communist dictatorship. if the USSR were democratic , they wouldve spread democracy.

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    What makes sense to me, is that unlike capitalism, communism requires a government to function. Well, and how do governments fail? By turning into a dictatorship.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Thats like asking why North Korea became a dictatorship when it is a people’s democracy.

    Power gaps get filled, small states get conquered.

  • Wahots@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Greed. The Achilles heel of humans since the beginning of time. Greed breeds hate, hate breeds fear, and fear breeds violence.

    • DacoTaco@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Or as seth from street fighter 4 said it so well :
      “… The poor seek riches, the ugly; beauty, we compare ourselves to others and seek to cover our own inadequacies to find peace of mind. The mere existence of those who are better than us becomes intolerable. We fight in retaliation! if beauty is not enough, we use money. If money does not work, we resort to voilence! This energy is what powers our world! It is essential! All i seek is to help this natural process along! This destructive force begotten from confect! This power that everyone lusts for, i will spread it over the world in but a touch! It is like a well that can never run dry! A precious mineral flowing from an inexhaustable mine! This power will be mine!”

      … Followed by ryu’s stupid “no you” response

  • jatone@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    because its a centralized system with well defined hierarchies. makes it incredibly easy to subvert and control.