this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
500 points (98.3% liked)
Communism
2608 readers
122 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
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
Soviet reeducation camps and the million plus people that died in them disagree.
I think both capitalist and communist propaganda is full of shit, but damn.
Are you referring to the soviet prisons in general as "re-education camps?" An enormous number of prison deaths occured during World War II, when famine was widespread due to the Nazis storming Ukraine, the USSR's breadbasket. On the whole, soviet prisons and the justice system itself were more progressive than their peers, Mary Stevenson Callcott documented it quite well in Russian Justice.
The soviet union, despite having a progressive legal system, was in a state of constant turmoil caused by pressures both external and internal. They couldn't simply delete all previously existing ruling-class people and ideology, class struggle continues under socialism. Further, pressure from the imperialist west, invasion both in threat and in action, and intentional sabateurs meant that the prisons certainly weren't empty. The soviet union never had a single year of normal, stable growth, free from intense opposition on the outside and counter-revolutionary forces on the inside.
I'll state it again, as I said in my other comment: the red scare existed because porkie was terrified of a system that stood to steal from under their feet the very foundation they set up for their total reign.
I encourage you to learn more about the topic, we're all taught to hate communism and be doomers, by our families, schools, media and so on, but when you look at the facts communism is better for the vast majority of people, those who do all the work but receive less compensation for it. The surplus of our work is stolen by those who own stuff.
You presume too much about my background. You are also missing the fact that every attempt at communism has somehow also resulted in a small group of elites stealing the surplus labor.
That is completely false. You have no clue what you are talking about. If you want to talk about something, try educating yourself first
I did educate myself, and in so doing I learned that false statements with absolute terms are easily disproven. I noticed a distinct lack of disproof in your reply. All heat, no light.
Obviously you didn't
Funny how all you can do is throw out ad hominems.
It's not an adhominem also you can't prove a negative the burden of proof is on you. You're doing a Russell's teapot. You have made a statement that is false with no evidence to back up your claim.
You can't prove a negative, but they are easy to disprove if they are false. My assertion is logically negative, even if I didn't phrase it that way. One positive counter example would prove it false. Got one? The evidence of my claim is that no counter examples exist. How do I cite the lack of something?
And yeah, it was a textbook ad hominem.
Cuba? Yugoslavia? Mao-era China? Paris Commune? Spain in 1936? The early USSR?
In Cuba, large parts of the social surplus have long been distributed through universal systems rather than privately captured. In Yugoslavia, workers’ self-management gave enterprise councils real authority over production and surplus allocation. In China under Mao Zedong, mass-line politics and collectivization explicitly targeted bureaucratic privilege especially during the cultural revolution you likely demonize (even if that had its own major issues). In Paris (1871), officials were recallable and paid worker wages. In Soviet Union, the early revolutionary period featured soviets, factory committees, and formal attempts to cap official incomes and socialize surplus.
If you dismiss all of these, it starts to look less like analysis and more like bad faith. And your argument completely sidesteps the decisive factors, relentless external pressure from capitalist hegemony, war, blockade, sanctions, sabotage, plus the material limits of poor, devastated societies. Treating outcomes as if they emerged in a vacuum reeks of liberal idealism. That’s about as useful for understanding political economy as quoting scripture. What actually recurs historically is not some mystical law that “communism creates elites,” but bureaucratic pressures under siege and underdevelopment, concrete problems of socialist transition, not proof that surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class.
I would recommend you study some theory and learn to apply dialectical and historical materialism rather than wasting your time spreading malformed "analysis".
I never said communist systems don't result in some level of redistribution. Poverty in Cuba is widespread, but somehow doesn't seem to reach the political class. I don't think those politicians are living large on the fruits of their own labor. The US gets a lot of the blame for the poverty, but not the distribution within Cuba.
Yugoslavia isn't communist. I'm roughly a social libertarian and worker managed enterprise is something I strongly support. I support a lot of things with a communist flavor, and I'm probably closer to the communist side than capitalist.
China is your strongest example, though I object to the pigeon hole you put me in. However, I think it's fair to draw a distinction between distribution achieved though revolution and distribution maintained by the resulting communist system. The revolution was extremely effective, but inequality started resurfacing as soon as it ended. It's also notable that poverty in China didn't really fall until the introduction of capitalist "reforms". ( I would not argue that "reforms" shouldn't be "capitulations". )
I don't see the relevance of what was "attempted" in the Soviet Union. The discussion is about what was achieved.
I wouldn't (and didn't) say that communism creates elites, but I think it's powerless to prevent them. I definitely don't believe that "surplus must end up in the hands of a new ruling class". I just don't think communism is a functional solution. I do believe fair distribution is achievable, but not under communism or capitalism. I don't believe the spectrum between the two encompasses the entirety of what is possible. In fact, the biggest problem with both systems is that neither is structurally sound.
Oh, give it a rest. Imagine me assuming the only reason you aren't a raging capitalist is that you haven't read enough Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. That's what this sounds like, and it's exhausting.
You’re moving the goalposts. You started with “communism results in elites stealing surplus labor.” Now it’s “communism can’t prevent inequality” and “maybe there’s something outside capitalism and communism.” Pick a lane. Those are completely different claims. The original one is already falsified. In Cuba, the political class does not own production and surplus is routed through the state into healthcare, education, housing, and food subsidies under permanent siege. That is not capitalist surplus extraction. In Yugoslavia, workers’ councils directly controlled enterprises and surplus, your personal approval of worker self-management doesn’t magically make it irrelevant. In China under Mao Zedong, mass-line politics and collectivization explicitly targeted bureaucratic privilege (especially during the Cultural Revolution). In the Paris Commune, officials were recallable and paid worker wages. In the early Soviet Union, surplus was socialized through soviets and factory committees with formal income caps on officials. These are concrete institutional facts. None of this fits your original caricature of “a small elite stealing surplus labor.”
On Cuba: inequality exists. That is not evidence of a new exploiting class. The Cuban leadership does not privately own factories or land. Complaining about internal distribution while casually brushing aside six decades of blockade, sanctions, sabotage, and economic warfare is lazy. You’re treating Cuba like it developed in a vacuum. I hope you can see how patently ridiculous that is.
On China: you admit Mao-era redistribution was real, then dismiss it because inequality resurfaced later. Congratulations, you’ve just demonstrated that outcomes depend on material conditions, not some mystical communist essence. Also, China’s post-reform poverty reduction rested on Mao-era foundations: land nationalization, universal literacy, basic healthcare, and industrial infrastructure. Markets were layered on top of socialism, they didn’t replace it.
On the USSR: saying “attempts don’t matter, only outcomes” is historically illiterate. Institutions don’t appear fully formed, they evolve under civil war, invasion, famine, and international isolation. Ignoring that context while declaring socialism “powerless” is like judging a burned house without mentioning the arsonist.
And notice how far you’ve already retreated. Now you say communism doesn’t create elites, it just “can’t stop them.” That’s not what you originally claimed. Marxists have been writing for over a century about bureaucratic degeneration under scarcity and imperialist pressure. You’re not discovering anything new, you’re just refusing to engage with the material conditions that produce it.
Finally, since you want to posture: socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference. It’s a scientific framework (historical and dialectical materialism) built on analyzing class relations, production, surplus, and concrete conditions. You clearly don’t understand that method, yet you feel comfortable lecturing people who do. Liberalism and capitalism, by contrast, rely on idealist abstractions about “human nature,” “markets,” and “incentives.” That’s about as scientific as the Bible. If you actually want to contribute something meaningful, start by learning how material analysis works instead of recycling warmed-over liberal common sense and calling it insight.
The only exhausting thing here is your seemingly unlimited arrogance to lecture others on topics you don't understand beyond surface level vibes and idealism.
Inequality, at least the levels of inequality that really matter, is largely a result of the theft of surplus labor. I acknowledge the difference, but I don't see how they are not so different as to really impact my argument.
every attempt at communism has somehow also resulted in a small group of elites stealing the surplus labor.
That argument followed on my previous statement that "I think both capitalist and communist propaganda is full of shit". That has always been my "lane".
false
Now who is moving the goalpost? The elites don't have to own the means of production to steal surplus labor. The mechanism is irrelevant. Also, if the surplus is routed through the state, then those who control the state effectively own the surplus. This is mitigated only by the degree to which the politicians are actually accountable to workers. Cuba is a single party state with tightly controlled speech and media. Every candidate is nominated by the elites, with voters only getting an up or down vote. Not great accountability there.
You ignored my entire rationale. If I mug a king and distribute their stuff, that's not communism, it's revolution. Communism is a system of economics and it's supporting political infrastructure. Communism rose out of the revolution, but they are not the same. I judge communism by how it functions when the revolution is over. As communist systems were deployed, inequality rose right along side it.
I don't see how your statement invalidates mine. At no point did the USSR not have economic elites. Specifically the Nomenklatura.
I never said communism creates elites. I said it results in elites. If I leave my window open in the rain it results in wet curtains, but it did not create wet curtains.
Another goalpost shift. I spoke of communism, not socialism. They are not the same thing. Also, every country has "arsonists" to deal with. A political system that only works when the world cooperates is not going to be successful at any time in the foreseeable future. And yes, I do realize how not level the playing field was.
How exactly am I posturing? How are you not posturing?
Again with the socialism? Socialism existed long before historical and dialectical materialism though Marx did develop more rigorous systems of analysis. I'm a "hard science" kind of guy, so I'm not completely on board with calling it science, but that's just a quibble. There are many forms of socialism though, not just Marxism, and each has their own "scientific" rationale.
I'm not a liberal, and I support capitalism even less than I support communism - largely for the reasons you stated.
And I'm posturing? LOL
You’re still doing the same shell game: redefining terms mid-argument, ignoring material institutions, then declaring victory.
You said “every attempt at communism results in elites stealing surplus labor.” That is a specific claim about class extraction. It is not the same thing as “inequality exists.” You keep pretending they’re interchangeable because your original statement collapses otherwise.
You wave away Cuba by saying “whoever controls the state owns the surplus.” That’s liberal abstraction. Cuban officials do not privately own factories, land, or finance. Surplus is overwhelmingly allocated socially (healthcare, education, housing, food subsidies) under permanent blockade. That is categorically different from capitalist ownership. Calling every state-administered surplus “elite theft” empties the concept of meaning.
You dismiss Yugoslavia even though workers’ councils directly controlled enterprises and surplus. That alone falsifies your “every attempt” claim. Your preferences don’t override historical structure.
On China under Mao Zedong, you claim redistribution was “just revolution, not communism.” No. Those mechanisms were implemented through socialist institutions: collectivization, mass-line governance, cadre supervision, campaigns explicitly aimed at suppressing bureaucratic privilege. When inequality later rose after political line changes, you treat that as proof against socialism instead of proof that outcomes depend on material conditions and leadership. You’re proving the materialist point while denying it.
You invoke the “nomenklatura” in the Soviet Union as if this is some revelation. Marxists have analyzed bureaucratic degeneration for over a century. Yes, a privileged stratum emerged under siege, devastation, and isolation. That does not automatically make them a property-owning bourgeoisie, nor does it validate your universal claim. Degeneration under pressure is not identical to surplus extraction as a ruling class.
Your rain-and-curtains analogy is embarrassing. Social systems aren’t weather. They operate under concrete historical forces. Treating imperialism, sanctions, invasion, and sabotage as background noise is textbook idealism.
Then you retreat into “communism vs socialism” hair-splitting to dodge counterexamples like the Paris Commune, where officials were recallable and paid worker wages, or early Soviet soviets and factory committees with income caps. These were explicit anti-elite mechanisms. They directly contradict your claim.
At this point the pattern is obvious: whenever concrete institutions don’t fit your thesis, you redefine “communism,” redefine “elite,” or redefine “surplus.” That isn’t analysis. It’s cope.
And your final pivot is telling: “no system works unless the world cooperates.” congratulations on discovering imperialism. Marxists begin with the reality of imperialism. You invoke it only to declare socialism impossible, while giving capitalism a pass despite it requiring global coercion just to function.
Now for the part where you really make yourself look ridiculous: you pretend you're some “hard science” guy while dismissing historical and dialectical materialism. I have a bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD in STEM, alongside a master’s in Marxist theory. Socialist theory is not vibes or moral preference, it’s a systematic framework for analyzing class relations, production, surplus, and material conditions. You clearly don’t understand that method, yet you keep lecturing people who do. Liberal capitalism, by contrast, rests on idealist fairy tales about “human nature,” “markets,” and “incentives.”
At this point you’re either arguing in bad faith or you fundamentally don’t grasp basic political economy. Either way, this isn’t a serious exchange anymore. I’m done engaging with someone who substitutes semantic evasions and surface-level cynicism for material analysis.
Great comment, of course, but this part in particular:
I am incredibly jealous that this is an option for people. In the west, any Marxism taught in schooling is heavily distorted, either to outright condemn it as evil, or to create "western leftists" that turn doomer enough to tacitly support imperialism. There are some decent orgs that do good training, but not at an institutional level. As a consequence, we all basically have to be self-taught, ideally combining theory with real practice so as to avoid the "western left" phenomenon.
Still, really cool that you have a master's in Marxism! Huge respect for that (along with the PhD, of course), and it makes any compliments you've paid me seem far too flattering, haha.
Thank you. I am surprised to hear that even serious organisations are not running night classes or the like. I had heard groups such as the BPP would intensively study Chairman Mao's 红宝书 as a group.
The orgs that do exist do have study platforms. PSL, for example, requires a year of training and study before becoming a full member, and has Liberation School for anyone to make use of. However, this cannot truly be compared to the resources and study a university can provide, which is what I am more jealous of. Study at the level of a budding revolutionary party in the heart of a deeply reactionary empire is always going to be a struggle, needing to overturn decades of anti-communist propagandizing, and the kind of higher-level Marxist debate that happens among contemporary Marxists is mostly out of reach for us in the west.
That's fair. You have to start somewhere.
Yep!
You don't even know what your debate pervert words mean. Read a book dude
LOL, and another ad hominem. At least you guys get points for consistency.
That's still not what ad hominem means. I urge you to read instead of pretending to know about things
"Your point is wrong because you are stupid" -ad hominem
"Your point is wrong and you are stupid"- not ad hominem
Did you even read that definition? You weren't applying it correctly. Similarly the things you said, were wrong, not because of who you are, but because the things you said were wrong. That's why i encourage you to read instead of talk
Here is the entire comment I originally said was an ad hominim.
It's just a bald assertion that I am wrong followed by an assertion that I'm uneducated or ignorant. There is absolutely no attempt to engage with the argument at all. This is clearly an ad hominim.
Doubling down on the assertion that I'm uneducated, and still no engagement with the argument. - ad hominim 2
So, I'm a "debate pervert", whatever that means, and I don't read books. There is no attempt whatsoever to explain how I am misunderstanding the term. ad hominim 3
And now you are on my block list.
You made a claim, backed by nothing, and now you want evidence against it?
Evidenceless claims can be dismissed evidenceless.
I made a claim that would be trivial to disprove with a single example. The proof is that there are none. How exactly do I cite something that doesn't exist?
What would you accept as proof? The USSR brought dramatic democratization to society. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about, and today we have Professor Roland Boer's Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance to reference.
How could they have materially been more democratic in a way that would satisfy you?
When it comes to social progressivism, the soviet union was among the best out of their peers, so instead we must look at who was actually repressed outside of the norm. In the USSR, it was the capitalist class, the kulaks, the fascists who were repressed. This is out of necessity for any socialist state. When it comes to working class freedoms, however, the soviet union represented a dramatic expansion. Soviet progressivism was documented quite well in Albert Syzmanski's Human Rights in the Soviet Union.
In what way were they more repressive than their peers?
We all know the answer is nothing
Yep, but it's helpful to have that hang so it's obvious to others.
Thanks, comrade! 🫡
No? Socialism and capitalism have delivered demonstrably different results precisely because the social surplus within socialism was and is directed towards fulfilling the needs of the people, via large projects and social programs, which under capitalism are limited due to the capitalist class entitling itself to the vast majority of the surplus.
No judgement intended, but you're literally echoing anticommunist propaganda, I encourage you to keep learning.
Propaganda is not necessarily false. All you are saying is that I'm not aligned with your political project. You are correct.
While you're correct in that propaganda isn't necessarily false, I said you're repeating anticommunist propaganda, which is notorious for being a mix of exaggeration, bad faith interpretation and outright fabrication. We all learn that bs, unfortunately not all of us do the work to go over the claims and realize just how much it all rests on misrepresenting and misunderstanding history.
All history is misrepresented. That's one thing that definitely isn't exclusive to capitalism. It's funny how every argument I get from communism cheerleaders always comes down to some variation of "you are dumb". It's kinda pathetic.
It took you exactly one reply to arrive at "well what is truth, anyway?"
I've been nothing but respectful in our exchanges here despite you constantly acting smug and being confidently incorrect. If you're not ready to be respectful back or at least consider whether your deflections are justified or not we have nothing more to discuss here.
You only think you've been respectful because you haven't done the work to move beyond the bs version of "respect" you were indoctrinated with.
Do you find that respectful?
Have you considered you get called dumb because "it is known" isn't a valid argument outside of liberal spaces.