Radical_EgoCom

joined 1 year ago
[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

[Saying that there's no such thing as a state that's more authoritarian or less authoritarian is denying reality.]

To clarify, that's not what I said. I said that there is no such thing as a non-authoritarian state because states are authoritarian by nature, not that there aren't varying degrees of the level of authoritarianism among different states. America is in many ways less authoritarian than the USSR, but it's still authoritarian nonetheless.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

@jeremy_list @NoiseColor @yogthos

[immediate transition is not only possible in theory but actually has some precedent]

– How is it possible in theory, and what precedent does it have?

[expecting a transitional state to actually continue the transition is even less rational than expecting Jesus to show up and start helping]

Why?

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

@Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

I'm not at all trying to suggest that Stalinist Russia was more free than modern-day America, just that many people think of America as a free country when it's actually closer to Stalinist Russia than they'd care to recognize.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 4 points 4 months ago (16 children)

@Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

3/3 ...in technology) and all while having the largest prison population in the entire world, possibly being larger than the amount of prisoners in labor camps under Stalin (again, it's hard to compare since records from that era from the Soviet Union are lacking).

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 3 points 4 months ago (18 children)

@Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

2/3 Also, speaking of America again, one of America's suppression methods is suppression through delusion, tricking people into thinking that they're actually free with constant propaganda in media and schools when the reality is that America is just as much (and maybe even more, since it's hard to compare the exact numbers to the Soviet Union) police presence and civilian surveillance as the Soviet Union did (but probably more surveillance given the advancements..

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 7 points 4 months ago (26 children)

@Aatube @yogthos @NoiseColor

1/3 [most western states (and, in fact, most states) don't suppress discourse as much as the USSR often did.]

I have to partially disagree. While it is likely true that the USSR was more outward with its suppression methods than most western states today, countries, like America for example, do suppress dissent on a regular scale (Campus protest, George Floyd protest are just two notable examples, but there are plenty of more).

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 9 points 4 months ago (50 children)

@NoiseColor @yogthos

...immediately transition to communism because that would be impossible, or at least strategically impractical. The plan of Marxist-Leninist revolutions was always to create a transitional state that would eventually transition into a stateless classless society once the state was no longer needed.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 16 points 4 months ago (51 children)

@NoiseColor @yogthos

1/2 [Communist revolutions can be bloody and can lead to authoritarian states.]

– Yes, revolutions can be bloody, whether they're communist or otherwise. That's not really unique of communist revolutions.

"Authoritarian state" is a meaningless redundancy; there's no such thing as a non-authoritarian state. If your criticism is that the revolutions didn't immediately result in a communist society, then that's also a poor criticism since they were never meant to...

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

@volodya_ilich

If there aren't any Marxist organizations in your area, then be the first person to make one. That's how all Marxist groups are made, by people who got tired of there not being and Marxist organizations near them, so they just decided to make one themselves.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

@Cowbee
I'm not able to take anything you say seriously. First, you claim that individuals having authority over others isn't an accumulation of power even though a person with authority would have to have power over others to have authority over them, and then you claim that communism is compatible with inequality, which is the most absurd thing I've ever heard a communist claim. You sound like a revisionist.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

@Cowbee
Hierarchy is the accumulation of power in the hands of a select minority of people. Even if there are safeguards to prevent too much power going to the top there will still always be an accumulation of power at the top of the hierarchy, thereby creating an inequality of power amongst the population. The only way to not have inequality of any kind is to get rid of hierarchy.

[–] Radical_EgoCom@mastodon.social 1 points 6 months ago (5 children)

@Cowbee
Hierarchy is a bad thing as it perpetuates inequality and oppression by allowing certain people to have more power than others. Not only would a system where power is decentralized be better in terms of eliminating inequality and oppression, but such a system would be more in line with communism's goal of creating a classless society.

view more: next ›