this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2025
142 points (75.4% liked)
Memes
54647 readers
767 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here's the original poll, taken by a Czech firm. Specifically, 28% said they were better off under socialism, and only 23% said they are better off now. This is simple, direct, and irrefutable.
Electoral results in a parliamentary system are complex. People don't just vote for what they agree with, they vote for whichever party they believe has the best chance of winning and representing their interests to an okay degree. Additionally, as a capitalist state, pro-communist media is censored and minimized.
The evidence of the electoral results do not change the fact that more people said they were better off under socialism than those who said they are better off now. These are not contradictory facts, yet they claimed it as a definitive proof of the Czech poll being falsified, despite not at all being the same question or conditions.
See this is why I didn’t want to throw polls at each other. Now I made you click one link deeper into your article and suddenly the graphic in the first poll where it says 45% people say they are better off now and 39% say they are worse now turned into a statistic where 28% say they were better off in the past regime and 23% say they are better off now.
Which one is the irrefutable one you are talking about. I’m confused.
Maybe its better to stick with the election results they aren’t as easily misrepresented.
Only really naive people from countries that never experienced the “beauty” of communism can support it.
No, again, the original comment:
what we can say is that in reality, ppl aren't voting for the communists, even if a poll from 2011 shows that 28% of 623 Czechs said they preferred it under Communism. A very similar 23% say the exact opposite, and 17% aren't sure. the rest don't answer.
the poll doesn't really show anything of substance, but you USE IT as a way to try and manipulate ppl into thinking Eastern Europe wants Communism back.
it's disingenuous.
The poll absolutely shows substance, it shows that of a large sample size, more said they were better off under socialism than those that said they are better off now. Further, Czechoslovakia is one former socialist state. Across the board, results are similar or even more in favor of socialism. This makes sense, with the dissolution of socialism, 7 million people died around the world. Poverty, disparity, drug abuse, prostitution, human trafficking, and more skyrocketed, while life expectancy, literacy rates, and quality of life in general fell, for the vast majority of society while a scarce few benefited massively.
It isn't at all disingenuous. Using results from complex parliamentary elections as a way to disprove straightforward polls that ask very simple questions is disingenuous.
Sure, Jan.
...Jan?
it's an old meme.
point is, you're too divorced from reality. but neither of us will change our position, so just forget it and move on.
Where, exactly, am I divorced from reality?
Is the poll I linked fake?
Am I wrong that the vast majority of the communist movement internationally largely has similar views to mine?
Am I wrong that electoral results are far more complex than a clear-cut "are you doing better or worse under capitalism than under socialism?"
Is there some fourth thing you think is divorced from reality?
I'm not going to just let this go, you came here specifically to discredit and insult me, I'm going to defend myself. You don't just get to show your ass, claim I'm the one divorced from reality, then leave when it's clear that your comments aren't having the intended effects. If you want to stop responding, that's your right, just like it's mine to clear my name from baseless accusations and generic anti-communism.
they are having the intended effect. you reveal the thinness of your position, and the absurdity of how you cling deriving large claims from a tiny poll from 2011 rather than the repeatable, impactful, society-wide "polls" that happen regularly called elections.
THAT'S how you're divorced from reality, JUST TO START.
the fact that you can't see that, and consider your position even remotely serious, is why this conversation isn't worth the time.
ppl who are the fence should know what kind of a crackpot you are, and it's not because you're a communist.
Elections are not polls. Elections are more complex, driven by which party has a greater chance of making an impact. Smaller parties tend to get fewer votes not because their positions are unpopular, but because their capacity to make change is smaller. Furthermore, Marxists are, in general, against electoralism. This is fundamental to Marxism.
The sample size in the Czech poll was large enough for a coherent view of general opinions. Most professional polls are between 400 and 1000 samples:
This is basic statistics. If you aren't familiar enough with polling to understand degrees of confidence, then you aren't in a position to argue against the validity of polling based on sample size.
Finally, if you check the up/downvote ratios, it seems pretty much nobody is agreeing with you and everyone is agreeing with me. Your comments are having the opposite effect, they are legitimizing me. People on the fence seem to be siding with me.
lol they're not on the fence, mate. XD you know that. it's your tankie buddies. you live in an echo chamber. me popping by is me popping into that bubble.
listen man, again, you're just gonna keep carrying on. the point was made, for anyone new to your sell.
you support authoritarians and draw specious conclusions from old, small, cherry-picked data while ignoring the real world happening around you.
that's it. you're happy with with all this.
If everyone here is a communist, then again, which bystanders are you trying to convert? The rest of your comment is more dodging, and calling polls "cherry picked" even after proving that the data is actually towards the median sample size for high-confidence data. This is silly.
i'm not trying to convert anyone. you are. which you do constantly.
but for any reader who pops by, and the OP where this began before i interrupted your usual spiel, to know right away what you are.
All of the readers who have popped by seem to be siding with me, that's why I question your strategy here. Your arguments have fallen so flat they've legitimized me, if that's not a strategic failure I'm not sure what is.
again, you're being upped by the choir, mate. i wouldn't puff my chest out about that.
but dude, the point is, get it all out clear in the open. that's all.
you love the gulags and the authoritarians. just lead with that. i'd find it much more honest than what you do now.
I've already got my stances all clear and out in the open, from my stances on the Soviet prison system to what "authoritarian" even means in practice. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, again my opinons are fairly standard for Marxist-Leninists. Again, who are you doing this for?
this is coming up better in the other thread, so lets continue to focus there.
as for who i do this for, it's always for the pursuit of and elucidation of truth, for myself and for any who may find it useful in their own lives.
If it's for yourself, then you would do well to engage more with the arguments, rather than dismiss them outright. The point of the dialectical method is to come to a higher understanding by engaging with opposition, not avoiding it.
Either way, I answered the other thread.
i would but i already don't trust you from our last attempt at this. that needs to be addressed first.
I fail to understand how trying to come to a better understanding through opposed argument works if you reject making arguments, but you do you.
i'm not going to overly commit if i think you're full of shit, deluded and/or acting in bad faith.
I mean, I've made it clear that I think those have all applied to you thus far, yet I've still played my part in the game because I know it's more useful for onlookers to see the arguments than just dismissing the opportunity. If you truly believe me to be deluded and full of shit, bad-faith, etc, and know you're on a thread where more people will agree with me than disagree, then the only way your strategy works is if you engage with the arguments and win so thoroughly that they have to be acknowledged.
In the absence of pushing back against my arguments, all you've done thus far is give me a free platform to share my views, and good sources for those who wish to see them.
except i'm not trying to do any of what you seem to be accusing me?
the whole point is to get more of the truth out, wherever it lands.
i'm not the ideological one. you are.
this is nothing more than a social interaction.
Both of us are ideological, whether that ideology be easily labeled or not. The truth is coming out, in my opinion, my point is that it's better accomplished when both sides engage equally.
well, my intention today was not to question communism or defend capitalism. it was a contention that you were being disingenuous.
and while i still don't agree with some of your conclusions in how you use your data, i am softened in my assessment of you.
Well, I'll take that as a sign that the time we spent wasn't wasted effort.
agreed. let us go in peace. have a good rest of your day.
You too!
The fact that you just keep doubling down here is absolutely hilarious. Just take the L and move on bud.
yet here you are replying, curious
thanks Charlie Kirk, ya got me
you really just can't help yourself can you 🤣