Many ancient and indigenous societies were able to function very efficiently with a communist government, I don’t see why Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, and Venezuela’s attempts have been so terrible in the way that they are completely authoritarian. The Iroquois Nations’s democratic government was basically the foundation of the US’s democratic government, and they were also a communist society. So I see many examples of primitive communism being able to function. I even found out about an Indian state called Perula that is also a successful comminist state. I don’t see why we can’t make communism and socialism work out in countries like Laos, Cuba, Vietnam, and Venezuela. Forgive me if anything I said is wrong.

  • ImOnADiet@lemmygrad.ml
    6·
    1 year ago

    Because if you don’t protect yourself from the reactionary forces of the world, you and your comrades will be murdered and you will never achieve your goals. If you don’t want to read theory, how about a quote from a history book, The Jakarta Method? (Which I highly recommend you read all of btw)

    quote here

    This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: “Who was right?”

    In Guatemala, was it Árbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?

    Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit’s unarmed party didn’t survive. Allende’s democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the détente between the Soviets and Washington.

    Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported – what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.

    That group was annihilated.

    • Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method