[narrator]

Human rights are not a thing in communism. The only thing that matters is success of the party. Its accumulation of power is the measuring stick. Capitalist economics are only allowed because it helps the party succeed and not for any other reason. That's why they execute and fire billionaires all the time. If they are not helping the party succeed in its quest for global domination, they get fired and lose all their assets, rights and even their lives.

[syops]

Isn’t this a property of autocracy? It’s true that pretty much every implemented communist society became autocratic but there are systems - like the one in Iran - that similarly care only about the success of the party in power. The problem is not communism as such but of unchecked, concentrated power.

[chrisco255]

Turns out when you philosophically align your country around the idea that the state and the collective are more important than the individual, autocracy always flourishes.

[AussieWog93]

Just like Japan? South Korea? Taiwan? Singapore? Or on the other side, pretty much the entire Middle East?

Collectivist Asian cultures can definitely manage separation of powers and democracy.

[deepsun]

I always wonder whether Japan, Korea, Taiwan would be able to preserve separation of powers without US support. I feel like if US one day declines in power and won't be able to support then, they would fall into autocracies pretty quickly.

[AussieWog93]

You could say the same about a lot of non-Asian countries, though. Australia/NZ for a start, but I can imagine much of Eastern Europe too.

[beepbooptheory]

well, history in general shows autocracy flourishes whether or not the individual or the collective is primary, not sure you can claim a correlation there

[TeeMassive]

Taiwan used to be an autocracy too yet turned itself into a liberal democracy. At least "right wing" autocrats have goals, albeit misguided ones, and power is a mean to an end; but communist are obsessed by power and power alone.

[AussieWog93]

>At least "right wing" autocrats have goals, albeit misguided ones, and power is a mean to an end; but communist are obsessed by power and power alone.

I don't think that's true at all.

Most of the Middle-Eastern dictators are "right wing" and have no goal apart from seizing and holding onto power.

On the communist side, while that would be the case for many leaders, both Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro come to mind as exceptions. Keeping it strictly to "CCP-style" communism, Wen Jiabao jumps out as someone who saw the CCP beauracracy as a positive means to an end.

[alentist]

> both Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro come to mind as exceptions

What do you mean?

[AussieWog93]

I may be wrong, but from what I understand they had other goals than the pursuit of power and power alone. Specifically national independence, in both cases.

[TeeMassive]

Yeah, those are called excuses.