this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
911 points (97.3% liked)
Political Memes
9098 readers
3051 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There is still a difference between does not always prevent authoritarianism and causes authoritarianism almost immediately.
The Constitution of the United States has baked-in ownership class superiority coming right out of the gate, thanks to pressure from slave-owning interests.
Capitalism can be done so that it's way more fair than Obama era capitalism¹ but it requires a bulwark of oversight and uncaptured regulatory agencies to preserve a narrow wealth distribution.
Even in Europe wealth disparity is corrosive to the institutions.
I'm not interested in a specific model of not-capitalism. I'm interested in systems that support the public. And capitalism is demonstrably antithetic neoliberal capitalism is antithetical to that.
What we've seen in China and USSR is party-centric communism (soviet — lower case — communism). We haven't seen public-participatory communism.
1 Im not looking at Trump ere because we're already mired deep into an autocratic takeover and policies that work to dismantle institutions and engage in humanitarian wrongdoing.
We haven't seen it because it is inherently unstable. You either get people reintroducing capitalism or create an authoritarian party/leader to prevent that.
I should clarify, we haven't seen public-participatory communism in state governments, but we have seen it in NGOs, such as the Black Panthers and Zapitista Army, the former of which was massacred by FBI hits, and the latter which is still active in the Chiapas territory of Mexico. And they've been around since 1994. < does a websearch, > It appears the ZA controls a not-insignificant amount of territory.
But then we've so far seen all forms of government are unstable, with the current standard being a 1000 year peace. (Maybe the ancient Egyptian empire, but I don't know its history). Many regimes have risen and shown hubris that their rule should last so long, and have fallen to corruption or annexation by other states. Capitalism and authoritarianism facilitate the return of autocracy which, when it exists for long enough, becomes monarchy. The Kim family ruling DPRK (North Korea) serves as a modern example, and Kim Il Sung, the grandfather of Jong Un, has been deified to continue the culture of personality.
The US began destabilizing almost immediately. Remember the Constitution of the United States was the second draft, after the Articles of Confederation led to violent disagreement between the colonies. And still, after that the plantation barons introduced backdoors into the Constitution that figure specifically into the current crisis of tyranny, today.
Capitalism gets introduced because the rest of the world uses capitalism. We've seen plenty of communal efforts who provide socialized services within the commune, but will export product to trade with the outside. Middle Ages historians believe villages and hamlets shared openly without concern for parity, and would take their surplus (and cash crops) to towns to be traded or sold at market. But we didn't call this communism we called it subsistence agriculture They'd also reserve a portion for tribute to their liege lord, who kept order, protected against foreign enemies and maintained stores of goods for crisis (specifically, runs of bad winters and short crops).
It'd be nice if Kings governed fairly and compassionately, and corporation upper management could run their companies truly to facilitate long term company growth, but eventually you get a Joffrey Baratheon or IRL, a John of England, a Nero Caesar, or a Vlad Țepeș that brings ruin to the legacy their ancestors have built.
If you're going to denounce government models because they've never worked before, you have to apply the same standard to all other models you contrast it to.
We don't know what works, on account that none of them we've tried so far have succeeded for very long. This is why we need to see them as skeletal models and not as immutable ideologies nor as devices by which to manipulate the public into tolerating autocracy.
Sure, but... This is the part I always get downvoted for:
Communism probably doesn't cause authoritarianism. I say "probably" because we don't know - nobody has ever tried communism yet. Sure, USSR, China, NK all had "communism" on their banners, but they never actually implemented communist values (other than nationalising property). The fact that they all devolved to authoritarian systems is not proof that "communism causes authoritarianism", it only proves that the people in charge of the parties leading the revolutions where autocrats. Lenin was extremely critical of Stalin, for example, and noted in his diaries that him getting into power would be catastrophic. Also, those who are good at leading a violent revolution are not necessarily good at leading a country in peace-time.
As I note above, there are success stories with NGOs. The Zapatistas are still active and going strong. Also the Black Panthers in the US before they were massacred in an FBI operation.
When a society is annexed or wiped out, it can't really be said to be fault of the governing system that it failed.
Well, that depend on your definition of try. The common soviet revolutionaries were not fighting and dying to put Stallin in charge, or to enact purges and gulags. But revolutions are always tricky. We can't tell if the problem is communism or just a revolution going wrong.
But we have a branch of mathematics called Game Theory that is designed to model these situations in theory and it's very difficult to design stable communism even just in theory. Partially just because eliminating the owning class puts all that power into the hands of the political class. Partially because state is not pushed to run the economy properly when there is no competition to compare to. And partially just because there is no practical data, unlike for capitalism.
Regardless, between the risks and costs of a revolution, the uncertainties of entirely untested system and theoretical issue with communism, I find it very much preferable to work on improving social democracies, that we see working in Europe instead of risking it all on communism.
Though I don't know if USA is salvageable without a revolution anyway :/
100% agree on all points.
Communism is as much of a utopia as capitalism ("trickle-down" just does not exist, unless humans stop being humans), but since most large countries are already running a version of capitalism, there's just too much risk involved in a revolution.
I think a socialist-capitalist entity would have the most success. Capitalist market (heavily regulated) + Universal Basic Income, housing & healthcare, all taken care of by the government. That takes care of those on the "lower rungs" while giving incentive to educate/work/get rich for those who are into these kinds of things.