this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2025
374 points (91.7% liked)
Memes
53231 readers
723 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
Depends on what kind of leftist.
I don't think most like USA style gun culture, nor are they against regulated gun ownership.
In most cases they become more anti-gun in post-revolutionary society but are more pro-gun when faced with the threat of living under fascist rule or wanting to one day organize a revolution.
It doesn't really help when you are up against an army of fascists who also have guns.
So: when in danger, we need deadly force. When not in danger, we don't.
Crazy.
The crazy thing is successful armed uprising in the name of these left-wing movements generally ended up with fascist leadership.
I think in theory leftism isn't interested in guns, but obviously as a slave accepting your chains won't evoke change. Problem is guns are not very effective against the state military apparatuses in the modern world now. Not unless those militaries mutiny.
No, what happens is left wing solution is successful, and the ensuing governments are thoroughly demonized and slandered via a complex propaganda apparatus.
Which ones? Cuba is alright I guess.
Cuba, Vietnam, the PRC, USSR, etc. Cuba is similar to these other countries in economic model and democratic structure, which is why they have all seen good success, especially compared to peer countries.
Huh? I think you're confusing authoritarianism and fascism, you may not like either - but they are different things.
I'm not. Fascism is a variant of authoritarianism, and describes very well how the USSR, China, and other successful so-called communisms have operated.
"Fascism is characterized by support for a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived interest of the nation or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy." -Wikipedia
I believe in left wing ideology, it's just only ever seemed to emerge successfully from non-violent system-internal populism. Changing of hearts and minds in other words. Never through violence. Which makes sense, because proper humanitarian leftism is obviously antithetical to ends justify the means approaches to societal problem solving.
This is incorrect. Not only is your characterization of fascism oversimplified, it doesn't actually apply to actually existing socialism (AES).
AES states have not had dictators. In all socialist states, the governmental structure has been collectivized and democratic. Holding government positions for a longer period of time than capitalist democracies doesn't make a country a dictatorship.
Socialist states, with their more collectivized control, have had more evenly spread decisionmaling power than capitalist states.
Millitarism is correct, all lasting socialist states have had a necessity to build up at minimum defensive armies. The USSR was invaded by over a dozen countries at its inception.
Forcible suppression of opposition is technically correct, but fascism has always suppressed the working classes while socialist states have suppressed the capitalist class and landlords, fascists, etc. This erasure of class distinctions from the definition of fascism is a factor of wikipedia's liberal bias.
The belief in class systems technically counts as a social hierarchy, but the key difference is that socialist states work towards abolishing class, while fascist states uphold class and uphold racial supremacy.
Subordination of the individual to the many technically applies, but for fascism it refers to submission to a capitalist dictatorship for private profits whereas for socialism it refers to working class unity to meet the needs of all.
Socialism is a collectivized form of economic management, fascism's strong state control was in the interest of crushing working class organization and merging the state with corporate interests.
Fundamentally ahistorical. All meaningful working class victories have arrived through either direct violence, ie revolution, or the threat of violence, ie mass protests and civil unrest.
Thanks for laying it out Cowbee. I got as far as thinking "The key difference is that the authority in a Socialist state is derived from a robust democracy" before deciding it wasn't worth it lmao
No worries! 🫡
Name one AES state that isn't authoritarian, and suppressing of numerous human rights and dignities, that a greater percentage of the population enjoys in the west.
From what I can tell, few people are lining up to move to these countries, now or in the past. That suggests something isn't working.
AES states have their authority under the control of the working class, and wield it against capitalists, imperialists, landlords, and fascists. Capitalist states wield their authority against the working classes, and the imperialist west wields their authority globally against the global south to super-exploit for super profits. It isn't that western countries have better human rights than AES countries, the opposite is true. What the west has is the spoils of imperialism, plundering the global south. AES states don't have that.
A good example of this in action is people's perceptions towards their democracy in China, compared to the US and UK:
I don't disagree that the west got to where it is brutalizing everyone else. That is beside the point when we're talking about the present.
China is a terrible example of democracy and of communism. It has some effective social programmes and top down organization which has been efficient at rapid economic growth and reducing poverty, but there remain severe class divides, suppression of minorities and in some cases outright slavery with the Uighurs. Forget about LGBT rights too, of course. China may yet emerge as the paragon of human civilization the way the world is going now, but it's a few serious reforms away from that, including having actually democratically elected representatives.
Any other examples?
No, it isn't besides the point, the west runs on a system called imperialism by which they export capital and super-exploit the global south for super profits domestically. It's why the US Empire has hundreds of overseas millitary bases, and nobody else comes close. The west never stopped plundering, and the slow death of imperialism is why the west is currently turning to fascism.
Secondly, China is a democratic country where the working class is in control, and extreme poverty has been eliminated. The working class gains immense improvements in their lives year over year. They have strong protections for minority ethnic groups, and aren't enslaving the Uyghurs. They do have elected representatives, even if they don't practice the same system as western systems. LGBTQIA+ rights are regularly improving as well.
You fundamentally do not know what China is actuslly like nor how western countries function.