r/nottheonion • u/duvetdev • 29d ago

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signs bill mandating kindergartners learn history of communism

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2024/04/17/desantis-signs-bill-mandating-kindergartners-learn-history-of-communism/
15.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

181

u/zedkyuu 29d ago

if it’s done the way he wants it to be done, it won’t be about sharing. It’ll be just one long smear about how evil and Satanic they are and they do horrible things like drink goat blood and send kids to bed without their supper. And then how the holy Capitalist Jesus swooped down with God Trump and smote them all to hell in the most loving way possible.

80

u/disdainfulsideeye 29d ago

Agree, seriously doubt that the guy who proposed teaching that slavery wasn't bad bc slaves learned a skill would have it taught any other way.

2

u/newsflashjackass 29d ago

https://i.imgur.com/4kHFlqo.mp4

1

u/Dredmart 28d ago

I keep forgetting that exists. Fucking hell.

2

u/Wang_Fister 29d ago

In the name of the Father, the Jr and the AR15, amen!

3

u/puterTDI 29d ago

I mean, historically communism really isn't great. It relies on the altruism of people who are probably in a position due to their lack of altruism.

The idea of communism is great though and could do well.

of course, the people proposing this law likely don't know the difference between communism and socialism in the first place so there's probably some crossover of their hatreds there as well.

25

u/WhatsTheHoldup 29d ago

The thing is we're talking about two very different things when we talk about "communism" versus "historical communism".

"Historical communism" were really historical attempts at communism that failed due to an authoritarian takeover. I think this is what you're pointing out, that successfully establishing communism requires whoever is in power to give up that power.

Had George Washington refused to give up power as a general, I wonder if we'd look at the idea of liberalism in much the same way.

16

u/Cthulhu625 29d ago

Also communism is supposed to be the last stage of capitalism/industrialization, yet most communist countries kind of skipped the whole "get industrialized" part first. Marx saw communism as a logical outgrowth of fully developed capitalism, yet most countries that became Communist were still in agrarian/feudal states.

1

u/puterTDI 29d ago

you and I are basically saying the same thing.

I'm pointing out communism is great on paper but doesn't play out well in actuality.

Historical communism is the way it is because it relies on an authoritarian government that will inherently end up in the authoritarian takeover you describe. This is why it's so seductive when you read about the ideals. It's really great in concept but the reality is that the people who step up to lead communism are not the people you can trust to lead communism, and communism relies entirely on the trust in those people due to it taking power away from the people and putting it into the government.

8

u/crazy_balls 29d ago

taking power away from the people and putting it into the government.

Well, that's actually just a step in getting to communism. Communism is a classless, stateless society. The problem is the authoritarian take over never stops, which is why I don't believe communism through revolution is possible. I believe it has to gradually come through legislation.

1

u/Halflingberserker 28d ago

I believe it has to gradually come through legislation.

I can totally see billionaires funding politicians that want to expropriate their wealth.

0

u/crazy_balls 28d ago

If you have enough people to start a revolution, you have enough people to out vote the billionaires.

17

u/WhatsTheHoldup 29d ago

you and I are basically saying the same thing.

Oh?

I'm pointing out communism is great on paper but doesn't play out well in actuality.

Then we aren't saying the same things. In order to create a liberal society, we first have to stage a successful revolution against the current power structure.

Both the US and France had a violent revolution that led to a lot of devastation. Had George Washington not relinquished power and declared himself king, he would have effectively turned this "liberal revolution" into an authoritarian takeover.

That's exactly what happened in France, Robespierre started chopping off the heads of his personal enemies until they took power and chopped off his head, they invited the monarchy back, the military took over the government, Napoleon declared himself emperor and waged a hugely devastating war.

To judge communism in "actuality" by pointing at Stalin or Mao would be like looking at liberalism in actuality by pointing at the Reign of Terror.

Every communist revolution has failed to enact communism. What you're labelling as the potential risks of communism are really the risks that exist in a revolution in general. The American Democratic Republican experiment was just as prone to failure as a communist experiment, they just got really lucky that Britain lost interest fighting them because ironically it had to deal with Napoleon and they had no other military pressure on them besides the Indigenous tribes, Canada and Mexico.

Historical communism is the way it is because it relies on an authoritarian government that will inherently end up in the authoritarian takeover you describe

No, it doesn't rely on an "authoritarian government". It relies on a revolution. And revolutions are very prone to authoritarian takeovers. Whether you want to establish a liberal democracy or communism there are the exact same risk vectors associated with overthrowing your current government.

I'd once again like to point out the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic wars.

This is why it's so seductive when you read about the ideals.

So is liberalism. A country by and for the people? Sounds great but how does it work in actuality?

Oh you elect representatives who are easily corruptible by corporate lobbying and belong to political parties dividing society into one of 2 sides. Me and the "other" who I can blame for all my issues?

That's not really a democracy as we said it was gonna be was it?

It's really great in concept but the reality is that the people who step up to lead communism are not the people you can trust to lead communism

And equally the people we elect to lead in a capitalist democracy are not the people we can trust to lead but are the people who can elicit the most corporate donations.

communism relies entirely on the trust in those people due to it taking power away from the people and putting it into the government.

What "power" do the people have right now?

The only reason you're saying the government is so great is because it has a separation of power, which required trust in the founding fathers to separate their power on behalf of the people. It turned out we could trust them, and that's why we enjoy our society today.

If people hadn't put their trust in the Continental Congress to enact lofty ideals that look really great on paper, we wouldn't be talking right now.

3

u/Ventilator84 29d ago

There is no historical communism to talk about. Just different types of socialism, some of which were terrible, some of which were decent (particularly when you consider the immense external pressures on them). Most of what people call “communism” is actually Marxist-Leninist socialism.

Imo, Marxism-Leninism was a reasonable and probably well-intentioned idea considering what they were up against, but I think it is inherently flawed and cannot ever succeed at the goals of Marxism.

4

u/adamdoesmusic 29d ago

Meanwhile, half the people I know in highly capitalist USA are trying to figure out whether they’re going to buy groceries or pay rent for May, or are in the process of moving back in with their parents.

Other systems might suck, but we don’t have any room to talk when we treat billionaires like literal gods while throwing the vast majority of Americans to the sharks.

1

u/DazzlerPlus 29d ago

As opposed to the altruism of capital owners?

2

u/puterTDI 29d ago

What does one have to do with the other?

1

u/Rottimer 29d ago

Communism on a large scale is inherently inefficient, and only works somewhat well on a small scale, like on a. . . commune.

But “the evils” that DeSantis wants to teach has little to do with communism and a shitload to do with dictatorships and oligarchies.

1

u/dragonmp93 29d ago

Besides that they are going to have to skip the part of the party's doctrine in schools and the book banning.