[ChrisMarshallNY]

I don't think Russia (or China, either) has been truly communist, in a long time.

Not sure there are any real communist nations left. It's one of those ideologies that looks good on paper, but falls apart, as soon as humans get added to the soup.

Idealists never seem to account for base human nature.

[skeeter2020]

>> It's one of those ideologies that looks good on paper, but falls apart, as soon as humans get added...

Name an ideology where this doesn't happen.

[renewiltord]

Constitutional democracies with a free market have had a long run so far. We shall see if they last.

[seangrogg]

Curious how we're defining "democracy" and "free market" with this one. I wonder how countries with a pure democracy and an actually free market compare to the republic and regulated market we have in the US.

[renewiltord]

The US is a constitutional democracy with a free market and I consider it successful.

The definitions of these words can be the predominant use of these words in the English language. But if you want "constitutional democracy" here use this: https://civiced.org/lesson-plans/constitutional-democracy

And for free market here, use this: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp

People frequently misunderstand "constitutional democracy" as being substantially different from "republic" but that's usually an ESL error that can be fixed quickly.

[idiotsecant]

The vast majority of markets in the US are hardly free. Every single large company in the US is heavily government subsidized, market protectionism is rife, and regulatory capture and artificial moat-building is the norm. I think it's quite a stretch to day we have a free market. Maybe a 'free-er' market.

[renewiltord]

So be it. s/free/free-er/g in comments above if that will lead to convergence.

[latexr]

> The US is a constitutional democracy with a free market and I consider it successful.

Out of all the definitions you gave, I feel you left out the most important. How exactly are you defining “successful”? Considering the current state of the US, that one seems really important.

[seangrogg]

> The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control.

Given the amount of government subsidy and regulation that exists in our markets I assume this, too, is a simply ESL error that can be fixed quickly?

[krapp]

>I wonder how countries with a pure democracy and an actually free market compare to the republic and regulated market we have in the US.

They don't exist.

[idiotsecant]

Yeah, someone should make one of those. Would be interesting to see how they compare to the current 'free market' 'democracies'.

[tracker1]

It'll wind up mired into something close to what we have now before long. "There atta be a law" and "Think of the children"... That said, I'm fairly pragmatic about it... I don't think you can have free markets with nations that heavily manipulate their markets, or significantly different quality of life goals or regulation.

That said, I much prefer the free-er market systems and a constitutional republic over what the Quasi-Mauists seem to be pushing for.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

True, dat…

[keybored]

> Not sure there are any real communist nations left. It's one of those ideologies that looks good on paper, but falls apart, as soon as humans get added to the soup.

> Idealists never seem to account for base human nature.

Are the implicit “in practice” (cf on paper) and “base human nature” weird synonyms for America invading or doing a coup?

[tracker1]

Doesn't stop idealists from pushing their new, "real" version of it... or "Rules for radicals" and Maoist inspired updates to Communism along the way.

[mike_hearn]

Don't forget about North Korea.

China is still pretty communist, even if you define it purely economically rather than by all the other traits too (e.g. heavy censorship). The list of largest employers in the world has a lot of state owned Chinese firms.

[ii41]

Your parent comment labeled themselves off-topic but I'd say they were still pretty on it, but you're like way too off-topic. The point isn't whether some country or some people are real communists or not, but that an individual shouldn't be harassed for maintaining open source software and can somehow be linked to some rival of the West.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Fair point.

But, to be fair, the note about not taking human nature into account, applies everywhere.

I think that we've all seen very smart people fail to account for human nature, and things go badly.

Open source/free work is very human, and I have found it important to keep human nature in mind, as I work.

[lo_zamoyski]

I agree that ignoring human nature is a bad move. In fact, a recipe for disaster for many reasons. Repress or disrespect it, and it will come back roaring with a vengeance.

I also agree that empirically, communism is always a disaster.

But I would also say that communism doesn't even look good on paper. It looks terrifying! To naive and frankly clueless young minds with no appreciation of human nature, human society, and so on, a superficial acquaintance with the subject matter might seem nice, as it might play on tropes and juvenile grievances, envies, and sentiments. But an honest look at it by an intellectually properly formed and informed mind will inspire horror. It is a dehumanizing ideology.

Now, that doesn't mean our hyperindividualist, capitalistic, and liberal consumerist societies don't have their share of poison. They do, and again, to a good degree because they misconstrue human nature. But communism or even socialism are no solution to these ills.

(JPII's "Centesimus Annus"[0], among more academic works by him and others, addresses some of this. People often pay attention to his anti-socialist, anti-communist legacy, but remain unaware of his critical stance toward capitalism and liberalism.)

[0] https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/d...

[keybored]

> But I would also say that communism doesn't even look good on paper. It looks terrifying! To naive and frankly clueless young minds with no appreciation of human nature, human society, and so on, a superficial acquaintance with the subject matter might seem nice, as it might play on tropes and juvenile grievances, envies, and sentiments. But an honest look at it by an intellectually properly formed and informed mind will inspire horror. It is a dehumanizing ideology.

Notice the abundance of adjectives and complete lack of argumentation.

[lo_zamoyski]

If you're too lazy to read the linked encyclical, just say so. Don't hide behind vacuous moralizing.

[keybored]

If you’re too lazy to make your own argument, just-- well you already said so.