[concerndc1tizen]

That is fair; I think the reality is nuanced and that different opinions existed at the same time and were warring internally in the Soviet Union. In particular, IIUC, Trotsky thought that "a socialist revolution must spread internationally to succeed and cannot be confined to one nation" (OpenAI) - but he was also assassinated by Stalin's order, and the assassin was honored by Brezhnev. Stalin was assassinated as well.

It's a great tragedy if they felt threatened by capitalism, and capitalism by communism, in a self-perpetuating way that could have been avoided.

But I would argue that capitalism has its roots in aristocracy, imperialism, and private ownership (i.e. slavery, colonialism, and systemic exploitation), to an extent that it is fair to say that capitalism cannot co-exist with communist ideals.

But yes, European countries were heavily influenced by communist ideology, which continues to shape our values today, about well-regulated free markets, fair taxation, public service, and so on, which directly threatened capitalist interests, and arguably that's why we're seeing a rise in fascism, in an attempt to remove these communist ideals.

To be clear, I am confused on this matter, but I do think that the Europeans have been foolish to follow US doctrine for the last 50 years (since Reagan/Thatcher), and especially the last 10-20 years have been devastating on virtually every sector of the economy.

[sepositus]

> But yes, European countries were heavily influenced by communist ideology, which continues to shape our values today, about well-regulated free markets, fair taxation, public service, and so on

So this is the first time I've seen well-regulated free markets and fair taxation as being associated with communist ideology. Granted, I'm not well-studied here, but I recall being taught quite the opposite.

I did some preliminary research uisng Gemini Research to see if I could surface anything that might suggest this has been universally regarded as true and it came back with the opposite on the first (well-regulated free markets) and ambiguity on the second (not universally associated with communism).

Would you be able to reference a place where I can learn more about these relationships?

[concerndc1tizen]

I don't remember the original argument anymore. Something about communism being justification for US warmongering.

Personally I think 19th century communism was context-specific to the 19th century; we now have AI, and central planning could be done with the same computational efficiency as the stock market.

For me, communism is more about fundamental beliefs. Like "Do you believe in Jesus Christ as your savior?", the fundamental question is: do you believe that the state should serve all mankind, and that private ownership should never extend over more than what an individual can reasonably consume? Which then necessitates public service infrastructure and market places.

I think "social democrats" have more thoughts on practical applications. "Communism" is more about fundamental beliefs, i.e. the right to nationalize and collectivize private ownership. For example, it is increasingly clear that Microsoft, Amazon, etc. are becoming tyrants. They should have been broken up into smaller companies years ago. Imagine if Windows, Office, Xbox, Azure, etc. were each produced by fully independent companies? And if those companies were fundamentally obligated to serve the public market.

[concerndc1tizen]

Also, IIUC, China is communist but has a "socialist market economy", so the two are not mutually exclusive.