• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmygrad.ml
    14·
    11 days ago

    I think one thing that helps is studying more yourself, and only speaking on subjects you’re confident in your own understanding. For example:

    if communism is so great why did it fail everywhere

    By what metrics? Socialist China is rising rapidly, and socialist countries do better than peer countries when it comes to quality of life metrics like life expectancy, despite increased international strain. I also recommend reading about some of the problems with the USSR and how it was dissolved, so you can prove that it wasn’t simply because they were socialist.

    Communist were just authoritarian

    Ask them to define this! What tends to help is highlighting how the communists, when in power, asserted the authority of the working classes. This is in stark contrast to capitalist systems, where capitalists assert authority.

    China is just as bad as the US

    Again, how? China has much higher approval rates, engages in win-win economic cooperation instead of naked imperialism, only has a couple overseas millitary bases while the US Empire has hundreds, and maintains a defensive millitary instead of offensive. Plenty to show!

    People often focus on argument before becoming confident in study. The rest, like learning how to engage and reach people, comes with practice and time.

    • sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml
      8·
      11 days ago

      The Liberals had always been redefining words like dictatorship, Liberalism, Capitalism, and Socialism to suit their political agenda. They could say that Communism failed because the Communists did not make Pax Americana dictate their success or when the Communists takeover countries that are mismanaged by corrupt genocidal governments to transform them into economic superpower. The Liberals had been complaining that the USSR are so successful that the invisible hand is recruiting Soviets into key positions of Pax Americana. They declare that Communism failed because the Communists made Pax Americana employ repressive command economy to rig the market competition just to stop Communist takeover.

      The Pax Americana dictate that Communist is authoritarian either because they oppose the fake democracy of Pax Americana or because the Communists oppose plutocratic command economy of Capitalism in practice. They claim that China is just as bad because the Liberals dictate that Pax Americana can decide what is the truth about other countries or because they assume that other countries is as bad or worse than the British diaspora and former European colonies.

        • p0ntyp00l@lemmygrad.ml
          6·
          10 days ago

          the worst part is when they accuse you of splitting hairs or playing semantic games or something when you’re literally just trying to clearly define terms as they are scientifically. I think the hardest one is trying to explain how imperialism isn’t just when a big country picks on a little country.

        • star (she)@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          5·
          11 days ago

          It comes from the term Pax Romana, which refers to periods of “Roman peace” ergo peace dictated by the Roman Empire = Roman imperialism. Pax Americana is the same but for US.

          • yunah-knowles@lemmygrad.ml
            6·
            11 days ago

            this is what i most heavily associate with the the blissful neolib period where ‘history had ended’, in the period of parenti where communist projects had ‘failed’ (ussr collapse/decline, deng market reforms, quality of life increasing for westerners and their continually posturing at a better life for all their consumer goods + Assorted Good Freedoms) and so the term failed ideology was branded onto all communism and the body of theory of communism seemed as dead as ever. 80s to turn of 21st century(?)

            • yunah-knowles@lemmygrad.ml
              4·
              11 days ago

              the margie thatcher “capitalism is all we got” quote characterizes the period for me. a hapless throwing up of arms, announcing that communism had died a natural death when we had laced its drinks with polonium

            • sinovictorchan@lemmygrad.ml
              1·
              10 days ago

              That is the problem with the habit of Liberals to frequently redefine words like dictatorship to suit their political agenda. The Liberals claim that success in a Communist country means that the Communist country is now “Capitalist” even as they oppose the “Capitalism” in that Communist country. Likewise, the Liberals claim that failed Capitalist countries like US in 1930s are “Socialists” even as they seek to implement the policies and ideologies of the failed Capitalist countries. The recent Neo-Liberal practice of Pax Americana is to claim that Capitalism is against government intervention into the market to gain support for “Capitalism” and then redefine Capitalism to mean plutocratic command economy to implement “Capitalism”. Anyway, the election of Donald Trump should be destroying the free riders of Pax Americana and allowing the former European colonies to gain real development in human rights and economic prosperity.

    • ☭ znsh ☭ 🇵🇸 🇻🇪@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      8·
      11 days ago

      I agree that staying out of debates that I don’t have much knowledge about should be better, however I can’t just not respond when people spew misinformation about things. Even when I answer with “China is socialist” they counter by saying that it can’t be since they have billionaires etc. It’s exhausting.

      • yunah-knowles@lemmygrad.ml
        9·
        11 days ago

        theres a redsails writeup with this exact name. + literally existence of wealth and markets doesnt contradict marxist leninist theory u r dealing people who dont know shit about what is communism egalitarianism and the theory most socialist states exist by. obviously the vulgar idea of the communism button is fucking stupid. /nay im not mad at u

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmygrad.ml
        8·
        11 days ago

        I understand, comrade! For China, it’s pretty important to clarify that public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes control the state. Looking into that more can help in explaining it.

        • ☭ znsh ☭ 🇵🇸 🇻🇪@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          5·
          11 days ago

          Are there any sources that I could quickly reference? I know The Deprogram has a wiki that I usually use, but are there any others without having to read whole articles? I’m going to read them anyway, but just as quick info.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmygrad.ml
            5·
            11 days ago

            Depends on the subject, but my favorites are Jason Hickel’s 2 posts on approval rates and whether they are reliable, as well as Roland Boer’s 2 books Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A Guide for Foreigners and Socialism in Power: The History and Theory of Socialist Governance.

            Here’s a sample comment from my Lemmy.ml account:

            It’s absolutely true. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy in the PRC, and the working classes control the state. For example, when looking at publicly owned industries, we can see the following:

            Even checking Wikipedia, data from 2022 shows that the overwhelming majority of the top companies are publicly owned SOEs. This is China’s strategy, they’ve been honest about it from the beginning. The private sector is about half cooperatives like Huawei or farming cooperarives and sole proprietorships, with the other half being small and medium firms. As these grow, they are folded into the public sector gradually. This is China’s Socialist Market Economy.

            As for the state being run by the working classes, this is also pretty straightforward. Public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance, and we can see the class breakdown of the top of the government itself:

            Overall, this system has resulted in over 90% of the population approving the government, which is shown to be consistent and accurate. If you want to learn more, while not nearly as in-depth due to time limits as Roland Boer’s work (and mostly focused on the Xi Jinping era), Red Pen’s A Summary of Xi Jinping’s Governance of China can be a good primer! There’s also This is how China’s economic model works: Explaining Socialism with Chinese Characteristics by Geopolitical Economy Report.

            Socialism is not the absence of private property, but the transition between capitalism and communism, indicated by public ownership as principle. Collectivization of production and distribution is a gradual process, and to dogmatically apply this to secondary and small industry before markets naturally centralize them and prepare them for public ownership isn’t necessary.

            Only major thing I need is a source backing the breakdown of the CPC beyond just an image.

          • yunah-knowles@lemmygrad.ml
            5·
            11 days ago

            yeah completely! again, as other commenters have pointed out many of these people are difficult to convince since they both dont have as much of a short term interest in overthrowing capitalism like impcore citizens/other petit bourgeoisie or reactionaries, and some are just plainly approaching in bad faith or are really so incapable due to indoctrination to imagine literally any other alternative to capitalism

            there’s a lot to be said about the debate culture we’ve propagated that even in lib discussions is completely banal if not detrimental, since it makes unnecessary compromises by even treating fascist and other destructive ideologies as deserving of respect.

            in this sense it also extends to those who adamantly push against the historical facts to be anti-communists. once more, if you sense anyone is being adversarial and inflammatory and unwilling to learn actually about communism, don’t waste your time on them!! yes misinformation hurts to see spread (i have a ventpost about this exact scenario where i also reacted visibly to such lies being fed) but at that point, if you can’t fix that situation and will expend energy trying to do so, try to find ways to cope! honestly, online spaces with comrades/people of similar tendencies does actually help + finding people irl especially even if it’s hard/impossible.

            this isn’t to say you’ll never interact with a non-communist/anti-communist who cant be reasoned with, sometimes it’s worthwhile to pursue it, but honestly at this time focus on yourself, and really your own pursuit of better political education so one day you can dismantle these arguments easily in less time. i am rooting for you!!!