You have to understand that moderate positions or centrist positions are compromised positions. That means that you start with a position you have, then someone takes up a different position and then you change your position based on the relative location of their position. That's not a great way to go about arriving at positions. In fact, it's a guaranteed way to never actually get anywhere because your opponents merely need to go more extremely in one direction and you'll just get dragged along.

What you think of as extremists on the side of communism are people with positions that have literally been around for over a century and have been based in an adherence to scientifically analyzing human society to arrive at their positions. Does that make them extreme? Would you say the same thing about climate scientists? Do you think it's extremist to hold firm to positions that have been well and thoroughly analyzed and arrived at through rigorous study and debate?

[+] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com -8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

"The USSR did many things right in combatting inequality but ultimately fell short, it however was one of the best attempts we've seen so far, maybe we should improve upon that formula instead of the ones currently leading to year over year worse inequality". For Mao Zedong you could highlight his impressive skill in unifying such a vast country as China and remodel the national identity to one of national Pride without the underpinnings of conquest and domination which has always seemed to follow a strong national identity before.

Oh look, pretty much exactly what us communists and scientific socialists, as opposed to utopian ones, have been saying to begin with.

Michael Parenti - Blackshirts and Reds:

The pure socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.

I wouldn't say the USSR "fell short" though. They were absolutely on the right track and successfully vastly improved the lives of its citizens over what came before, taking the region from feudal backwaters to humanity's first space explorers in just 30 years, and rivaling a 200 y/o superpower in the process.

Its illegal dissolution by Gorbechev and his western allies was opposed by over 90% of the population and was a disaster that the former Soviet states still haven't fully recovered from 33 years later.

[–] Restaldt@lemm.ee 8 points 9 months ago (1 children)

"No one wants to have a civil discussion here with me"

"No not like that this is the literal dumbest shit ive ever heard"

Go have your enlightened centrist discussions with an ai chatbot that wont challenge you. Ever.

[–] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Edited because I wrongly assumed the reply was from the person I responded to. Changed subject/pronouns below in response.

What.

They replied to me literally stating that my opinions were flawed from the get go based on very big assumptions. Not only my opinions but everyone calling themselves moderate or centrist, we're talking millions of people you just said hold an inherently compromised position. That's some seriously dumb shit. That doesn't make them dumb, just that opinion and I clearly stated that paragraph was what I called out. I then addressed their other concerns and statements.

It's them who are shutting down any debate here. Not me. And yeah "enlightened centrist" is for sure a problem, people that think their position is inherently better because it doesn't adhere to an extreme. But I do not subscribe at all to that line of thinking and hold extreme opinions that I stand by.

And "civil" discussions are impossible over text, It's literally impossible to read and respond correctly to feelings in text and human beings aren't, by and large, capable of disconnecting their emotions from discussions, even less when it's political. And I argue we really shouldn't either. If we can't respond to strong emotions then we're not fit for debate either. Just look at literally any political debate anywhere in a democratic nation, it tends to get pretty heated. I argue more heated than necessary/reasonable right now but that circles back to my point about politics being too tied to morals and identity. But still, emotion is an inevitable and reasonable part of political debate.

That said my intention was never to hurt their feelings, my intent was to strongly reject what they stated, and "I strongly disagree" does not capture even close to how strongly I feel about that statement.

As such I'm sorry and I understand if they have no wish to engage in any debate. I really don't even see anything to really debate here either. Unless they want to defend their first paragraph I guess.

[–] RedWizard@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

You replied to me literally stating that my opinions were flawed from the get go based on very big assumptions.

Typical Redditor behavior, you don't even stop to look at who you are speaking with, you just assume every comment below yours is somehow the same person, and not possibly someone else who also thinks you're a total chud.

[–] ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com 3 points 9 months ago

Valid, a poor assumption on my part.