South Africa

communism
africa
southafrica
commies

#1

The government is still turning South Africa into a Communist, unproductive, and self destructing African State. Will this be Rhodesia 2.0? What is your opinion on the matter?


#2

Whatever it is it can’t be much worse than apartheid, but yeah communism is a bad idea. When will people learn from history…


#3

History has nothing to do with this, communism was never applied anywhere, and capitalism is just the same shit, but it, at least, was applied and seemed to work on some nations.


#4

Oof, it seems we have a deluded Communist over here. “Communism has never been tried.” Come on pal, it has been tried but it always failed, which is why nut jobs like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and more exist. The only successful communist state (yes there was one that worked) is Cuba. That’s because it is extraordinarily homogeneous, you can only leave by boat or air, and the non-revolutionaries were shipped out or killed.


#5

Defining Communism has been kind of hard for in the past, but looking at history, I have noticed two very common forms of Communism being implemented: Marxism-Leninism and Maoism.

Leninism (Or Marxism-Leninism if you like obnoxiously long names) is an elitist ideology asserting that the proletariat doesn’t know what’s good for them, so they have to live through a “planned economy” where the Capitalist industrialization is rushed as fast as it can in order to reach Socialism. The two fatal flaws of this system are the fact that rushing through Capitalism condenses lots of injustices into a short time span stripping an entire generation of any sort of freedom and that the “proletarian” dictator decides that this State Capitalist system he’s created suites him well, so he will end up never relinquishing the power. The USSR and Cuba are examples of ML.

Maoism (or Maoism Third Worldism if you like obnoxiously long names) is an anti-elitist yet equally absurd ideology that believes that the 1st world proletariat are exploiters of the third world proletariat. This is the ideology that is the source of the whole “intellectualism is colonialism” bullshit that some of the modern useful idiots like to spout. it also contains the same authoritarian dictatorship of the proletariat garbage that Leninism has. I would also like to go on a small tangent here in order to claim that I think M3W is caused by similar racial insecurities that created National Socialism. China, Campuchea, and the DPRK (somewhat) are examples of M3W.

There are other forms of Communism out there like traditional Marxism, which I think isn’t all that possible considering how often it gets bastardised. There’s Market Communism found in Tito’s Yugoslavia; I like this one a bit more, but I think Yugoslavia was only held together by joint funding from both Unions and just Tito himself. There’s Trotskyism which has never been tried, and I honestly don’t know much about Left Communism in general. Finally, there’s anarcho-communism which I like the most, but I still disagree with them on collectivism which I think is another form of authoritarianism.

As a libertarian socialist somewhat (I believe in everyone owning their own means of production), I think that the Communism that has been tried enough for us to see that Marx’s solutions to the Capitalist problem are not actually that good. Instead, I encourage Socialists to find new angles, especially ones that appeal to even supposed Capitalists and other right-wingers. In the end, I seek a system where Capitalists are able to relinquish the oppression of massive corporations like Monsanto, De Beers, and Walmart while the Socialists can tolerate personal freedoms including the free market.

P.S. I feel like this post is a bit rambly, but I hope you get the point I’m trying to make.


#6

Requesting permission to steal this to use as an argument against @Goon_mog


#7

Leninism is elitist but not for that reason, the vanguard party in Leninism is supposed to be a temporary arrangement. The Soviet Union’s democracy was originally organised in councils known as soviets (where they got their name). Lenin suspended these because he feared the risk of the ussr splitting, especially during this time the revolution was quite literally being attacked from all directions, Lenin died before the soviets could be reinstated or another democratic system put into place. Lenin’s Testament is a very relevant document because in the early USSR the higher echelons of the party had far less control over what is basically a citizen army (the revolutionarys). Lenins testement was read out to the leadership of the communist party after he died and the key points of it are, A Trotsky is the successor to Lenin, B, Stalin is literally an ice cold mofo (paraphrasing but he did say this) and should be removed from Secretary General, and C, most of the communist leadership Lenin completely grilled. This led to their embarrassment and ultimate fear they would be thrown out if the public knew. So they suppresssed it…which allowed Stalin to
Remain in power, and as they say the rest is history.

Also dictatorship of the proletariat would be a democracy lad, almost everyone is a prole, communists later on changed this to people to not exclude Marxian peasants (vestiges of feudalism).

Leninism is however a seperate ideology to Marxism Leninism, the latter of Which was stalins “continuation” of Leninism, colloquially called Stalinism for that reason amongst anti ML communists.

Leftcoms are communists who reject the ML style approach of using a state to achieve socialism and move to communism , most I know are a continuation of the soviets (now calling them councils I.e council Communism). Leftcoms are very orthodox marxists and are often more likely to have near expert level of knowledge on Marxian theory. To help nail the point on Leninism , some leftcoms are leninists :stuck_out_tongue:.

Classical Marxism is theory not ideology.
It’s also not that easy to bastardise considering well known Marxist theorists were actively suppressed by the Stalinist ussr (because big shock he constantly violated even basic principles including taking the role of state capitalist).

Market socialism* why do we communists have to point out that even Stalin didn’t claim to have built a communist society,

It’s technically speaking the successor to Leninism , Trotsky also wrote on how things went so fucking wrong (hence why he had to flee)

These guys are an entirely different conception of communist, they are pure anarchists but I’d still call them like most libertarian socialists comrades.

I myself am a reformist Demsoc (one of the schools of socialist/communist thought you missed lad, :tongue: )