You're viewing a single thread.
As a theory, sure. I just have yet to see it expressed in any functional way that didn't devolve into a shit show. See: Russia, etc.,
I think it's telling that so many wish for a return to communism but still defend Putin's atrocities. :|
Russia devolved into capitalism. Funding a military is incredibly expensive and necessary when a communist country wants to exist in a world with the United States. This creates a militant economy that must be centrally governed to coordinate this military might. True democratic socialism is impossible as long as the United States exists as an imperialist force.
True democratic socialism is impossible as long as the United States exists as an imperialist force.
1, That's silly, there's tons of democratic socialist countries that are doing just fine - today! Bolivia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand - think the US fucks with their way of governing?
2, the USSR was never a type of democratic socialism. Period. They literally called it 'soviet democracy' distinctly, and it meant something WILDLY different that the kinds of democratic socialism we see in the above listed countries.
Your premise is faulty, built upon an imagined soviet union that did not practice the tenants you're endorsing.
1, That’s silly, there’s tons of democratic socialist countries that are doing just fine - today! Bolivia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand - think the US fucks with their way of governing?
All of these countries are free market economies, though. If you classify a country that has public programs as socialist, then USA is a socialist country.
Also, just as a detail, Switzerland is probably one of the most capitalistic countries in the world. They have nearly a flat tax rate, very small amounts of corporate / capital gains taxation and a health care system that is nearly privatized. And it's all working pretty damned well for them.
Canada
Ok, how did Canada managed to get on this list? And Switszerland?
They literally called it 'soviet democracy'
Parlamentary democracy is real thing. Usually it is called parlamentary republic. Nothing special, most of Europe works this way.
soviet democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy
Parlamentary democracy is real thing.
yeah, it is, and it's not what the soviets were doing.
yeah, it is, and it's not what the soviets were doing.
Even article you linked says it was parlament with delegates.
few parliaments are made out of soviets - worker delegations - lol.
but if you'd actually read the article I linked you'd have seen:
In contrast to earlier democratic models à la John Locke and Montesquieu, no separation of powers exists in soviet democracy.
show me where that's a thing. no, actually, don't bother.
you're too stupid to continue engaging, I'm not going to enlighten you, and you aren't going to bullshit me any further.
In contrast to earlier democratic models à la John Locke and Montesquieu, no separation of powers exists in soviet democracy.
And I'm didn't say parlament should be strictly legislative body.
I don't think they are socialist democracy but social democracy. There is a distinction. I don't think any country is a socialist country in morden history. There where some movement that were trying to be socialist but it either fell into dictatorship (USSR, North Korea, etc)or it was squashed by USA(Chile, and other central/ south american countries). The most successful one was that of Chile, until US backed coup overthrew the democratically elected government in favour of dictatorship.
None of those are socialist countries. They're all capitalist
I guess you can stick your head into the ground and pretend democratic socialism isn't a thing.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-15-democratic-socialist-countries-181857008.html
it's stupid, but stupidity is always an option.
Of course, if you just toss these countries' accomplishments away, you're really just undermining the entire premise, because without these successes the record of 'socialism' gets a whole fucking lot worse.
lol
You're citing a capitalist finance website to prove your point about socialism. You seem to be confused between social democracy and democratic socialism. I understand because they seem so similar that they must be basically the same thing, right? Nope.
The Nordic model is a form of social democracy. They take many of the benefits that socialism provides and builds them into a capitalist economy. Democratic socialism is an actual form of a worker owned an operated economy.
If you're ever in doubt, ask the question, "who owns the means of production?" If the answer is huge megacorporations and wealthy billionaires, then it's a capitalist economy. If the answer is the working class, it's socialist.
if you just toss these countries’ accomplishments away, you’re really just undermining the entire premise, because without these successes the record of ‘socialism’ gets a whole fucking lot worse.
Ok, then.
- No, you're thinking of Social Democracy.
True democratic socialism is impossible as long as the United States exists as an imperialist force.
Not sure how to explain, but I don't think so.
The US has destroyed every socialist country in history that didn't have a strong enough military to fight them off
What makes it require capitalism suddenly?
My concern with this line of argument is that it bundles consequences from a system of government up with the consequences of trade embargoes and other hostile actions from capitalist economies. That doesn't make the actions of the dictators in those countries justifiable in any way, but might have precipitated conditions that made them more likely.
How would communist nations have fared if the US had taken a 'live and let live' approach to them? The approach during the cold war was that they couldn't be allowed to succeed. That led to the sort of standards of living where dictatorship tends to thrive. Note this isn't unique to communist countries. Look at the Republican party in the US, now that Neoliberalism is failing.
It also ignores that Socialism in AES states has generally resulted in mass reductions in poverty, increases in literacy, education, home ownership, and life expectancy.
AES is an acronym for “actually existing socialism”
Places that use that acronym often cite that Korea is a socialist nation, using the line that there is only one Korea and not recognizing South Korea.
So take the acronym usage as the tell it is.
Hands up if you’d rather live in one of these socialist paradises the dude is talking about … a state like North Korea or Laos or China or Cuba over South Korea or the USA.
Fucking clown
Maybe point at functional socialist democracies RATHER than the broken socialism implemented by these communist attempts which gave communism itself a bad name.
✋
You're a fucking idiot if you think the problem with those countries is communism and not unceasing imperial violence targeted at them from the global core of wealth and fascism.
But even living under conditions of siege warfare they still manage to provide housing and healthcare to their people which make them objectively better places to live than the US, which deliberately keeps a large population homeless because of the coercion it creates for the working class.
Do you think changing Mode of Production magically transforms levels of development? Typical liberal.
Perfect, no response except to throw a question and “insult”
This is why you won’t be taken seriously ever.
I already answered you, living in the US is currently better than some AES states, because development isn't something magical. However, I would absolutely pick an AES state over the US in the comimg years. Hell, the PRC is in many ways ahead of the US for the average worker already.
Serious question because it is relevant to the discussion, do you currently have a job?
Do you live in one of these western countries?
What is your personal frame of reference that tells you you’d have a better life than where you are in Cuba or Laos or North Korea?
What would china give you right now that you would move there for?
Please, be specific so I can understand.
Pretend you had a chance to convince me instead of angrily and frustratedly arguing your point in a defensive manner.
I believe in socialism, it’s been incorporated into democracy quite well actually and provided significant quality of life for its citizens.
Communism on the other hand has largely always moved to an authoritarian beat, China and Laos and Cuba and North Korea are all prime examples of this in the present day. Much like the two party system in the USA has hindered its democracy I don’t see how a one party system with strong central rule is not a HUGE step back from that. At least we have a semblance of choice and the mechanisms to fix what is broken.
Why do you prefer a form of government that takes choice away from its citizens?
Why do you prefer a form of government that takes choice away from its citizens?
We don't, we support proletarian democracy, not bourgeoisie electoralism.
Anna L. Strong, This Soviet World, Chapter III: The Dictatorship
The heads of government in America are not the real rulers. I have talked with many of them from the President down. Some of them would really like to use power for the people. They feel baffled by their inability to do so; they blame other branches of government, legislatures, courts. But they haven’t analyzed the real reason. The difficulty is that they haven’t power to use. Neither the President nor Congress nor the common people, under any form of organization whatever, can legally dispose of the oil of Rockefeller or the gold in the vaults of Morgan. If they try, they will be checked by other branches of government, which was designed as a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent such “usurpation of power.” Private capitalists own the means of production and thus rule the lives of millions. Government, however chosen, is limited to the function of making regulations which will help capitalism run more easily by adjusting relations between property and protecting it against the “lawless” demands of non-owners. This constitutes what Marxists call the dictatorship of property. “The talk about pure democracy is but a bourgeois screen,” says Stalin, “to conceal the fact that equality between exploiters and exploited is impossible. . . . It was invented to hide the sores of capitalism . . . and lend it moral strength.”
This is a post advocating for communism.
Communism allows elections and choice for its people?
Where?
During the Stalin years in the Soviet Union
Let us take first the formal facts of voting, though this is far from exhausting in the Soviet citizen’s participation in government. The Soviet Union has today the largest body of voters any where in the world. Moreover a larger percentage of them come out to elections than in any other country; they give more time to their elections and decide a greater variety of questions.
All “toilers” over the age of eighteen may elect and be elected; the word is interpreted to include students, housewives, old people who have passed the age of work as well as those more formally known as workers. Voting thus extends to a younger age than is common elsewhere, and there are no disqualifications for transient residents, paupers, migratory workers, soldiers, sailors, such as exist in most countries; even non-citizens may vote if they work in a Soviet industry. There are no restrictions for sex, creed or color, nor even for illiteracy. The only significant restriction relates to “exploiting elements,” but the steady decrease of privately owned enterprises has cut the disfranchised to 2.5 per cent of the population in the 1934 elections; by 1937 it is expected that all will have the vote. In the 1934 elections 91,000,000 people were entitled to vote, and of these 77,000,000, or 85 per cent, actually participated, which is double the proportion found in most countries.Several elections which I attended will show concretely how soviet democracy functions. Four election meetings were held simultaneously in different hamlets of Gulin village, which had no assembly hall big enough for all. One of these meetings threw out the Party candidate, Borisov, because they felt that he neglected their instructions; they elected a non-Party woman who had displayed energy in improving the village and were praised by the election commissioner—himself a Party member—for having discovered good government timber which the Party had neglected. The central meeting in Gulin expected 235 voters; 227 appeared and were duly checked off by name at the door. There ensued personal discussion of every one of nine candidates, of whom seven were chosen. Mihailov “did good work on the roads.” The most enthusiasm developed over Menshina, a woman who “does everything assigned her energetically; checks farm property, tests seeds, collects state loans.” Dr. Sharkova, head of the Mothers’ Consultation, was pushed by the women: “We need a sanitary expert to clean up our village.” The incoming soviet was instructed to “increase harvest yield within two years to thirty bushels per acre, to organize a stud farm, get electricity and radio for every home, organize adult education courses, football and skiing teams, and satisfy a score of other needs.
Anna L. Strong, This Soviet World, Chapter IV: The Growing Democracy
Serious question because it is relevant to the discussion, do you currently have a job?
Yes, full-time, though the plight of the unemployed and unhoused is equally important. Not telling you any more, not doxxing myself. Additionally, it absolutely is not relevant.
Do you live in one of these western countries?
Yes.
What is your personal frame of reference that tells you you’d have a better life than where you are in Cuba or Laos or North Korea?
The US is a dying Empire. It has no long-term future, conditions are worsening. Disparity is rising and will continue to do so, and Real Wages will continue to stagnate. The world is already throwing the US off their backs at increasing rates.
Meanwhile, Socialism has stable growth over time that doesn't depend on self-destructive systems like Capitalism or Imperialism.
I believe in socialism, it’s been incorporated into democracy quite well actually and provided significant quality of life for its citizens.
Social Democracy is not Socialism. I am not talking about Capitalism where "the government does some extra stuff." Social Democracy in the Global North depends on Imperialism to support itself, and worker protections are crumbling as disparity rises. Social Democracy is a temporary concession.
Communism on the other hand has largely always moved to an authoritarian beat, China and Laos and Cuba and North Korea are all prime examples of this in the present day. Much like the two party system in the USA has hindered its democracy I don’t see how a one party system with strong central rule is not a HUGE step back from that. At least we have a semblance of choice and the mechanisms to fix what is broken.
Do you actually know how these countries function, democratically and politically? This isn't a gotcha, I want to know to what extent you're familiar so we can even begin to talk about them. Even then, North Korea isn't a One-Party State.
Why do you prefer a form of government that takes choice away from its citizens?
I don't, that's why I am a Communist and not a Liberal. Come on, this was a useless gotcha.
In what communist nation are there free elections?
I don’t understand this mental gymnastics.
You’re talking about the benefits of socialism while advocating for communism but my questions have been about communism.
In what communist nation do you have free elections?
In what communist nation do the people actually choose their leadership, instead of a “elite (but remember communism is supposed to be classless…) group that elects the leaders”?
Communism is a novel idea BUT it hasn’t done a very good job demonstrating its benefits to the world. That’s the unfortunate reality of the situation.
Europe is socialist, what communist Russia had was a totalitarian government. Go pound sand you ducking idiot.
Europe is not socialist. Socialism requires ownership of the means of production by the proletariat, no western European nation has had that, and the eastern ones got overthrown and capitalism re-instated.
Communism is ownership of production, socialism is social safety nets managed by the government like free Healthcare. And sure most of Europe probably is just the lite version of that.
No.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, and a transitional state towards Communism.
Social Safety Nets are Social Safety Nets.
Go jump off a bridge, fascist lover, I can hear Stalin calling for you from the graves of all the people he killed in the name of your "Communism"
Remember that our CoC applies even on communities outside our instance. Try to avoid personal attacks and telling people to harm themselves per CoC 3.2 and 3.7. Continued failure to do so will lead to a temporary or permanent ban.
Lmao
socialism is social safety nets managed by the government like free Healthcare
That's social, not socialist. Yes, entire Europe is social(maybe except UK), even dictatorships(Russia, Belarus) in Europe have social element. And Europe is not socialist for over 30 years.
Europe is socialist
The very first sentence from Wikipedia: Socialism
Socialism is an economic and political philosophy encompassing diverse economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production, as opposed to private ownership.
Who owns the means of production in Europe? The capitalist class, same as in every other capitalist state. Social welfare under capitalism is not socialism.
what communist Russia had was a totalitarian government
I already covered this elsewhere in this post.
Go pound sand you ducking idiot.
We’re done here.
Europe is Capitalist and Imperalist. What the USSR had was Socialism.
Please explain exactly why you think Europe is "Socialist," lmao.
Even if you hate communism, calling the EU socialist is hilarious. Seems a lot of people in this thread have never even read a basic dictionary definition for socialism. I am surprised the people replying to you even know there is supposed to be a difference between socialism and communism.
Legitimately frustrating. As a Communist, I try my best to help people understand just what these terms actually mean, and explain why people such as myself support Communism, but there are people that cling to nonsense definitions and shroud themselves in mystery.
Decades of calling everything you don't like, and any government support, communism, I guess.
I spose when something gets elevated to the level of heresy, then everything even remotely negative gets associated with it.
yup, heresy is a exactly how it is treated.
maybe, before the '56 invasion this could have happened, but I'm dubious. And after Hungary, lol, fuck right off thinking the capitalist world should support your communist brutality.
“Fascism is good, actually.”
get
fuckedoops that's not civil.fuck fascism and it's practitioners.
See: Russia, etc.,
Last time I checked sheikh-esque palaces and yachts are something that is not communism. Same goes for Putin's oligarchs.
I think it's telling that so many wish for a return to communism but still defend Putin's atrocities. :|
For some reason I see them less than few years ago. I wonder why...
Putin’s oligarchs.
And where did Putin come from?
For some reason I see them less than few years ago. I wonder why…
probably because they're losing their love of this special military operation slightly exceeding it's 3-days-to-kiev plan. Those dumb sonsabitches brought their dress uniforms for the parades they knew were going to happen.
lol
And where did Putin come from?
Some from behind desk near him in KGB, some are his neighbours.
First can be solved with lustrations. KGB, FSB, NSA, FBI - they greatly harm society.
Both can be reduced by destruction of iron throne. "All power power to soviets" v2. Most of Europe already into parlamentarism, so nothing unusual.
Both can be reduced by destruction of iron throne. “All power power to soviets” v2.
This would be grand, good luck! Make it happen.
What do you mean by "devolve into a shitshow?
See every communist nation in history
I see China building renewable energy capacity, and crazy fast trains, faster than the rest of the world combined.
I see Cuba, a tiny island nation, still independent after 64 years of brutal US sanctions.
I see Vietnam, a popular retirement destination for American 'expats'.
I see Russia, being fairly shitty and also 100% capitalist for 25 years.
Hmm, seems like you may have been told a bunch of times that communism is bad but never really looked into it.
China is extremely capitalist lmao
I'm not fucking defending capitalism or demonizing communism, it's just never worked. I see absolutely zero reason to expect any difference if we tried it in the us
Nuh-uh, Xi pressed the big red communism button and now all the capitalism is gone!
[is joke, obviously that's not how it works]
"It's just never worked" is ignorant though. Every nation that has tried to dump capitalism has has successes and failures, and there are many factors that contribute to each. Economies are extremely complex and you simply can't say anything intelligent without getting at least a bit more in-depth than "works/doesn't work".
China is Socialist with Chinese Characteristics, the CPC practices large and extensive levels of State Planning and the People's Democracy structure means the Capitalists in China do not control nor guide the State.
Capitalism exists in China as a concession, it isn't some fully Socialized state, but it is a transitional economy.
Read China Has Billionaires.
I see China starting to prosper as soon as they dropped the Communist economic model and opened up to capitalism, private ownership and free trade. I see Vietnam starting to do the same.
I see NK, a more developed nation than SK right after the war, very close to their communist allies and having the second biggest economy as trade partner and neighbor (USSR first, China now) now being irrelevant economically while you can't even enter or exit the country freely. In the meanwhile SK managed to become a global power. Btw, what's up with communist countries and not letting anyone enter or exit the country freely?
I see Vietnam, a popular retirement destination for American 'expats'.
Pretty sure this has nothing to do with communism. Happens also in Indonesia or Thailand and has all to do with them being poor as fuck and the huge human trafficking business happening in those countries. And those "expats" are the worst of the worst scum on earth, trust me
The USA and the international institutions they control have done an impressive job making it look like open markets equals prosperity, but when you look just under the surface, a different picture emerges.
Vietnam, for example, was denied access to IMF loans, while trying to rebuild after an absolutely brutal war that basically set them back to the stone age. Only once they agreed to certain liberal reforms were they allowed access to the funds and resources they needed.
If you're not really paying attention, it looks like you're right.
I've looked, I see the exact opposite. Go back to reddit where you can wallow in ignorance without anybody noticing.
Vapid
So large increases in literacy rates, life expectancy, home ownership, education access, healthcare access, and democratization of society is "devolving into a shitshow?"
Do you think Russians were better off under the thumb of the Tsar? Do you think Cubans were happier as slaves in Batista's US-backed slave-state? What point are you genuinely trying to make?
What you’re talking about here are results of industrialization. The same can be said for capitalist countries during the Industrial Revolution.
Not really, given that USSR managed to achieve the levels of industrialization that took a century under capitalism in mere decades while tangibly improving the lives of the working majority as opposed to exploiting the workers for the benefit of a small capital owning minority.
Today, we only need to look at the difference in development between China and India. Both started roughly in the same place in 1950s, with China taking the communist route and India taking capitalist one.
They were not. The USSR had free healthcare, education, incredibly cheap housing, all while it was far less developed than Western Countries. Development helped, yes, but what helped the most was Proletarian control and direction, not Bourgeois.
All while draining its member states of their wealth and human capital…
If that was true then we'd have very different result here
-
First part is a result of industrialization.
Second part, no they weren't, but that just means that they were worse off before, not that they were great afterwards.
I genuinely think the idea of communism is great, but human nature will ensure that it will never be successful. There will always be someone who gets greedy and takes more for themselves in the pursuit of wealth and power.
human nature will ensure that it will never be successful
Human nature is to be kind and helpful. Humans are social creatures. We wouldn't have survived for thousands of years if everyone said "fuck you got mine".
Even if that were true, you are saying we should continue with the system that rewards stuff like greed, rather than try to have a system that doesn't. "Human nature" is an argument for socialism/communism.
First part is a result of industrialization.
Partially, the other huge part is that the products of production were funneled into safety nets and state projects like railways and universities, providing free education and healthcare, and not corporate profits.
I genuinely think the idea of communism is great, but human nature will ensure that it will never be successful. There will always be someone who gets greedy and takes more for themselves in the pursuit of wealth and power.
What's considered "Human Nature" changes alongside Mode of Production. It isn't Human Nature to be greedy, greed is more often expressed within Capitalism.
Additionally, wealth disparity went way down in the USSR. It wasn't a case where some few individuals profited massively and others lived in squalor, wealth disparity skyrocketed after it collapsed.
Are you familiar with Marxist Theory? You have a decidedly Idealist take, rather than Materialist.
LMAO