this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
437 points (100.0% liked)

Comics

167 readers
1 users here now

This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.

Rules:

1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules

2- Be civil.

3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.

4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.

5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.

Guidelines:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 34 points 2 months ago (7 children)

If only there were some kind of way for it to not devolve into totalitarian dictatorship...

[–] linkhidalgogato@lemmy.ml 18 points 2 months ago

lucky u, there is; its called just doing the fucking thing like normal, cuz non of the historical examples did that so u know.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

There is, and most have, despite imperial core propaganda to the contrary. Here’s a 1955 CIA report that was declassified in 2008.

Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

“Totalitarian” is itself propaganda: The Origins of Totalitarianism

Hannah Arendt came from wealth and so unsurprisingly was anticommunist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. “Totalitarianism” is a bourgeois liberal, anticommunist construct for the purposes of equivalating fascism and communism.

Monthly Review, The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited

U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.

If fact almost all of the “Western left” (that wasn’t repressed by the red scares) was captured by the imperial core’s propaganda machine: Imperialist Propaganda and the Ideology of the Western Left Intelligentsia: From Anticommunism and Identity Politics to Democratic Illusions and Fascism

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Soviet Union under Stalin comes to mind. North Korea.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That wasn't totalitarian nor a dictatorship. Soviet Democracy continued to be practiced, and Stalin's authority wasn't absolute or all-encompassing.

Where does a state go from a non-totalitarian, non-dictatorship to a Totalitarian Dictatorship?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

From the very article you linked:

There, Lenin argued that the soviets and the principle of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party still assured democracy. However, faced with support for Kronstadt within Bolshevik ranks, Lenin also issued a "temporary" ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and, according to some critics, made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality, and helped Stalin to consolidate much more authority under the party. Soviets were transformed into the bureaucratic structure that existed for the rest of the history of the Soviet Union and were completely under the control of party officials and the politburo.

Very democratic indeed lol. Can't wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (11 children)

according to some critics

Hey look at what the core of the quote you pulled is

I wonder what the ideology of those critics is

Very democratic indeed lol. Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next.

Objectively more democratic than the US. In the US you vote for president and they appoint the ministers of every executive agency. In Korea they vote for those directly.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (27 children)

I linked the absolute most liberal friendly source for you. Banning factionalism didn't mean they banned democracy. Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits. You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's very kind of you to have chosen that as a source but it seems to have been an unfortunate pick.

Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits.

It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.

Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago (19 children)

It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.

Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.

Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.

Liberalism and fascism were banned. Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.

Liberalism and fascism were banned.

So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that's not terribly democratic if you ask me.

Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.

It's an empty formality when it's a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.

Indeed, Socialism has been deemed "authoritarian" by foreign countries.

So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that's not terribly democratic if you ask me.

Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don't have to defend fascism. It's the paradox of tolerance.

It's an empty formality when it's a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.

This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Indeed, Socialism has been deemed “authoritarian” by foreign countries.

I wonder why something like the Soviet Union under Stalin would be called authoritarian. It's preposterous!

Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don’t have to defend fascism. It’s the paradox of tolerance.

It's just that they banned every other party.

This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.

Not so much tolerance for those viewpoints under Stalin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

Weirdly even this site puts it very bluntly: https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/index.htm

Based on the link I would've expected something else, but they are pretty upfront about it. Interesting website.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (46 children)

I urge you to pick up a history book on the Soviet Union if you think Stalin made up the entire political apparatus. Even the CIA disagrees with you there, because it was obvious.

load more comments (46 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (26 replies)
[–] Linktank@lemmy.today 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just like, everywhere they've tried it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

You must have an odd definition of Totalitarian Dictatorship then, I suppose.

load more comments (4 replies)