Russia and China are state capitalists, not "communist"
Mao did in China what Stalin did in Russia, it wasn't about communism, it was all about Mao or Stalin's POWER, and it turned into a cult of personality
With both the USSR and China, they initially started with communism. Both caved to economic pressure, seeing as communism can never compete with capitalism on the global stage. The USSR couldn't even figure out something as fundamental as agriculture so they killed all the kulaks to try to force it to happen. It still failed and millions of people starved to death.
With China, Mao was all about communism. Again, after losing millions to starvation, they decided to allow foreign investment and some level of private enterprise... because communism sucks.
Just providing true historical context here, because your comment is pretty ignorant of history.
I think the better argument from the right about this isn’t that socialism or communism is simply Stalinism or Maoism, but rather that it inevitably leads to that.
Basically the argument goes that because the state is given too much control over property ownership, industry, employment, food, etc. that this predisposes or accelerates that state to authoritarian rule.
Not necessarily making that argument here, just trying to present the best argument I have heard for the association of communism with these authoritarian regimes.
Yeah communism doesn't have the best track record. Only about 17% of people trust the government and it's hovered around 20% since George W. People just don't want to give the government that much power, and I don't blame them.
The problem with the right, which has been going on long before MAGA, is that any social program will be labeled as communism so they can cut funding somewhere actually beneficial and spend it toward their own interests. Nobody likes paying taxes, but the taxes we do pay should be coming back to us through beneficial services. That's not communism, that's just the way it's supposed to work.
I agree. It is well understood that the early FDR years was basically “a little socialism to prevent a lot of socialism,” which I think is actually a pretty good way to do things. A strong social safety net to provide a baseline for people who are struggling in hard economic times is not the same thing as government seizing control of property rights and industry to attempt to run a full command economy.
There is more than one form of communism. Stateless communism only works in extremely small settings which is why we've only seen it in small/tribal societies. I have yet to hear a communist make a good case for how to achieve a stateless society on a large scale. These societies always end up being decimated by external forces though.
Even simple fundamental questions about enforcement leave communists unable to defend their anarcho worldview. It's just utopian thinking.
See: here is a problem: Contrary to what the west has told in their BS propaganda: Communism does not mean the elimination of personal property. You can own personal property in Russia, China or Cuba (take a look at China's real estate market... and how capitalism has ruined it. Evergrande wasn't buying up apartment units to house the populace, they had them to sell for profit)
What the western world knows as communism does not exist. Never has. What the western world thinks is communism is really authoritarianism.
You are describing China post-Mao though. I think if you look at China during and shortly after the revolution, you see a more truly authoritarian communist state, not the open and more capitalistic China of today
Exactly, most people aren't at all acquainted with Chinese history. Or the USSR for that matter.
China relented to allowing foreign investment and some level of private enterprise after being unable to compete economically on the world stage. It only took millions of peoples starving to death to realize they picked the losing ideology.
3
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment