Is there some connection to the nation?

      • Kaboom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        4 months ago

        Marx wasnt a communist? Ive heard a lot of “not true communism” takes, but thats a new one.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          57
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Probably because you haven’t read much on the subject. Marxist theory speculated on how societies and economies could transition into communism. He and others created the philosophy and Concepts involving it. But were not communist strictly speaking. At least not in anything other than the state of the individual.

          Engles, and Lenin mistakenly thought that by replacing the authority and power of the wealthy with their own people. That they themselves would not fall to the corruption of power. And eventually over time the authoritarian state would somehow magically wither and die. Leaving them with a classless stateless society. Keep that in mind that is important for understanding whether something is communist or not.

          Was Russia classless or stateless? No Russia was a state. And they had plenty of different classes. ML never eliminated that. In fact all the current Russian oligarchs have direct ties back to the political Elite of Soviet russia. And instead of transitioning into a communist Society they’ve transitioned into fascism.

          Now let’s look at china. Is China a state? Yes. Not communist then. Are there different classes of people in china? Yes not communist then. Their claim on even socialism is somewhat tenuous at best. But they are definitely not communist. And at this rate will never transition into communism. Xi Jinping has moved into the Emperor’s Palace and is all but Emperor in name only at this point. He and his wealthy friends will never relinquish power to transition to communism. They will stay as they are until he dies. And then there will be a power vacuum. There may be some in fighting but someone will replace him and China will continue on until there there is another Revolution to replace the failed Communist Revolution that put them in power. Are they transition into open fascism as well.

          • Kaboom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            17
            ·
            4 months ago

            I saw this explanation a long time ago on reddit, and Im stealing it.

            There are two types of communism. The communism in theory and communism as practiced.

            Most people talk about communism as practiced. Think the USSR, China, Argentina, Cuba, any “state capitalism” country. This is how any attempt at communism will end. This is due tobthe fact that there isnt a mechanism to go from the tyranny of the proles to true communism, so you get stuck in tyranny.

            Youre talking about communism the theory. Communism the theory can not exist. Its fine to discuss it, but saying that communism the theory is the only true communism is just being obtuse and/or disingenuous.

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              20
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              They talk about it like that because that is how the propaganda both Pro and against talk about it. The fact is Soviet Russia and China started out basically as forms of marxist leninism. They aspired to be communist but weren’t. But they loved the word. And used it a lot. It’s like Nazis having socialist in the name. It didn’t make them socialist.

              Practicing communists? Look towards communes. They are the only groups actually practicing communism. Whether they were the hippie communes Bohemian communes etc. Those are what communism in general would look like. Not explicitly but overall. Each commune is its own group that governs itself but could cooperate with similar outside groups. Soviet Russia and China were never communist in any sense.

            • jorp@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Around the first French Revolution there were only a few historical examples of democracy and all of them (including the French Revolution) reverted to monarchy. (Putting aside also that those states governed many who did not get a vote due to gender, colonization, and slave status).

              Online edgelords at the time might have thought monarchy is the only system that can work and democracy only works in theory.

          • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Question: Do you think that stateless and classless society is sustainable and won’t evolve into a regular one?

            • Eldritch@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              4 months ago

              In terms of modern ideological dogmaticism? No. Pragmatically I think it’s possible to get very close. History has proven that. “Class” has never been a necessary construct. It’s always negative, hurtful, and exclusionary. Statewise, it’s always been more against nation state and to smaller extents even city-states. Large overarching structures. Keep in mind I’m coming out this from an actual Dejacque libertarian / anarco communist leftist perspective. Governance isn’t the enemy. Just large overpowerful bodies with concentrated power.

              • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                I think it’s possible to get very close

                My problem with this, is that organized groups have always advantage over disorganized groups, whether in crime or in legit manufacturing/services. You have neverending growth of these groups into social classes. The closer you want to get to classless society, the harder and more oppressive you have to go against that social phenomena. And I’ve never seen a good explanation who would enforce the laws keeping the society close to that “classless” state

                • Eldritch@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  My problem with that is that it isn’t about disorganization. That is a fundamental and widely perpetuated piece of misinformation about what anarchism / communism actually are. Anarchists can organize just fine. Now if what you want to argue is that detached highly concentrated power is capable of ordering atrocities and enforcing people to commit the atrocities in their name? Then yes they absolutely have the advantage. But in terms of actually doing the business of the people and governing. No there is no advantage. In fact it’s often a disadvantage. Being insulated from the needs of those they govern and the effects of the poor policy they put in place. It’s antithetical to good government.

        • bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Lenin isn’t Marxism. Stalin isn’t Marxism. Mao isn’t Marxism. Tankies aren’t Marxism. Marx would have thought nothing good of China and Russia. Marxist Leninists idolize Mao and Stalin. They think police states are the bees’ knees

        • CyberTailor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          “What is certain is that if they are Marxists, then I myself am not a Marxist”

          – Karl Marx

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Communism is a form of government based on Marxist ideas about how economic power works. But the two are not one and the same thing. You could say that Naziism is specific movement that was based on racism. But we all know the two words have distinct meanings and are not entirely interchangeable, intimate though their relationship may be.

    • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      4 months ago

      A lot of it isn’t actually communists, but a facade for spreading authoritarian propaganda.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is true. As long as a country declares itself to be economically left, they will defend every single authoritarian action and human rights abuse. Doesn’t matter if the reality is that the state capitalist country produces hundreds of billionaires. Any claim of leftist economics and they will defend anything it does. It’s clear they love defending authoritarianism more than they like leftist economics.

        • awwwyissss@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          they love defending authoritarianism more than they like leftist economics.

          They’re not paid to like leftist economics.

      • whoreticulture@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        🙄 there are communist countries that are not Russia or China, just like there are capitalist countries that aren’t the United States.

  • Fonzie!@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Mali didn’t claim their country TLD for a long time, some dude named Johannes Zuurbier decided to just hand out domains to anyone who wanted them, for gratis unless your traffic was super high (and even then asked to only cover the traffic costs). He did this in his spare time for the community. This all further appealed to Marxist-Lenists.

    Now it’s managed by the government of Mali, they still give them out for gratis/very cheap.

  • TrippyFocus@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Can’t remember the specifics but the Mali government was allowing free (or super cheap) use for awhile so that was the reason.

  • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    Fwiw, I don’t think the connection to communism was ever confirmed by the admins. Likely a happy accident for them