some people on this platform - eviltoast

please read some parenti

    • Davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      It’s infuriating considering that it’s in the first goddamn sentence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

      Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.

      If those libs could read they’d be very upset.

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Words mean what they’re used to mean. Even the word “government” is wildly different between Europe and the US. We flip out over headlines like the government of Belgium has collapsed! and it’s only as much of a kerfuffle as the House trying to elect a Speaker.

        • Davel@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          If ever there was a real world example of Newspeak, it is how—thanks to class war and three red scares—the working class no longer even has a word for socialism. So now welfare capitalists like Bernie Sanders call themselves socialist despite never calling for the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. It’s an amazing achievement of the capitalist class’ propaganda machine.

  • SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    Man im pretty socialist who lives in ex east germany with my parents actually being parz of that time and i gotta tell you, with what i hear from them, it was horrible

    • Bakzik [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Throughout Eastern Europe and the former USSR, many people grudgingly admitted that conditions were better under communism (New York Times, 3/30/95). Pro-capitalist Angela Stent, of George- town University, allows that “most people are worse off than they were under Communism . . . . The quality of life has deteriorated with the spread of crime and the disappearance of the social safety net” (New York Times, 12/20/93). An East German steelworker is quoted as saying “I do not know if there is a future for me, and I’m not too hopeful. The fact is, I lived better under Communism” (New York Times, 3/3/91). An elderly Polish woman, reduced to one Red Cross meal a day: “I´m not Red but I have to say life for poor people was better before … Now things are good for businessmen but not for us poor” (New York Times, 3/17/91). One East German woman commented that the West German womens movement was only beginning to fight for “what we already had here… We took it for granted because of the socialist system. Now we realize what we [lost]” (Los Angeles Times, 8/6/91).” Michael Parenti - “Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism”.

      parenti

    • я не из калининграда@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      ahhh yes… horrible as in:

      • guaranteed housing and employment
      • a non-discriminatory education system
      • 0% unemployment
      • low taxes
      • an actually functional railway network
      • a highly developed health care system that didn’t discriminate on basis of class
      • guaranteed childcare
      • womens rights way more advanced than in western germany at the time
      • and most importantly no fascists in government

      and no, i dont wanna say that there were no deficiencies, but it is rather obvious to me that it was quite the opposite of “horrible”!

      also, what the hell do you mean by “pretty socialist”?

      • SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Ah yes the oh so good DDR with exciting features such as

        • no freedom of movement

        • constant shortage of any goods

        • being a dictatorship

        • (contrary to your first point) a housing shortage

        • a culture so dictated by work that people had little to no free time

        • political pressure

        • control over the media

        • the fucking stasi

        And what i mean by pretty socialist is: everyone gets equal opportunities no matter what race, religion, gender, political views, etc. I want that chad - who just lost all his belongings - has the same chance to live a fulfilled live as elon musk has. I abhorr the fact that there are billionaire’s or even just millionaire’s while other people have to choose between paying rent or eating, and those people not even being in the worst situation compared to others.

        I want almost, but not completely, communism

        • я не из калининграда@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          im sorry but you seem to have been fed quite a few western myths about the gdr. you seem to be arguing in good faith though, so lets examine:

          no freedom of movement

          this is just plain wrong. tourism was possible and encouraged not only within the country, but also to fellow socialist states like czechoslovakia and hungary, as well as, albeit to a lesser extent the soviet union. such trips were enjoyed by virtually the entire population thanks to guaranteed vacation time.

          constant shortage of goods

          shortages were only a thing in the immediate aftermath of ww2, as well as during the 1980s. in the second case they were caused by the economic liberalization enacted at the time due to western pressure, as well as the general deterioration of conditions in the eastern block at the time, which happened for similar reasons. during the late 60s and 70s per capita consumption was more or less equal to the west.

          being a dictatorship

          every state is necessarily a dictatorship, as this is important for class preservation. just as liberal states will mercilessly crush revolutionary elements, so must socialist societies crush counterrevolutionary ones. please read engels on authority to understand this point better. it is a short read and very eye opening.

          a housing shortage

          any source on this claim? the only periods i can imagine this to be the case is in the beginning due to war era destruction and the end due to crisis.

          a culture so dictated by work that people had little to no free time

          this is in fact a valid point. a solution for this could have been found within the socialist system though.

          political pressure

          already answered previously in the point about “dictatorship”.

          control over the media

          “All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake “public opinion” for the benefit of the bourgeoisie.”

          – v. i. lenin

          the fucking stasi

          the mfs was necessary due to the constant threat of counterrevolution going out from west germany. but its reach and capabilities are much overblown in western propaganda nowadays. in fact, the east spent much less on its intelligence apparatus than the frg while still managing to have a lower crime rate.

          the goals you stated are extremely noble and i do in fact agree with every single one of them. you are being idealist though, which means that you absolutely need to read theory, especially lenin. a good reading list can be found here. if you would educate yourself properly you could become a great contribution to the communist movement.