Socialism is the people. If you are afraid of socialism, you’re afraid of yourself.
- Fred Hampton
Rest in Power Fred Hampton, a brave Marxist-Leninist that tried to do what was right and got murdered by the US police for it.
The same folks I know who wouldn’t even consider a conversation about socialism are not going to be swayed when I quote any black man to them, much less a panther.
Totally fair. The trick is to meet them where they’re at, and then work from there. The folks you’re thinking about will take a lot of effort, but if union organizers can do it then so can you
All you have to do is come up with a new name for it. It’s not like any of them have a clue about what socialism actually entails.
Historically, such a strategy doesn’t actually work. Sooner or later, you get accused of being a godless commie or a tankie anyways. You can either stand firm in your beliefs and attempt to sweep away the dirt of the Red Scare to accurately contextualize Socialism and AES states, or fail to support them at all, leading to issues like Trotskyism (poor understanding of theory and a lack of support for AES) or PatSocs (Nationalist Socialists in the Imperialist countries).
It worked when people rebranded “falsehoods” to “alternative facts” so why not try it?
But the talking head on Fox told me what to think about socialism, using no facts or common sense.
What am I supposed to do? NOT believe them?
the fear for good, is the fear for change or admitting they where wrong. it is pride, as well as lazyness, combined with stupidity and weakness. because weakness is not how strong one seems(or lack there of) but weakness, is how little a person would be their real self, as well as how much they assume that in order to be strong they need to supress others so they are in a worse state than them. supressing people is a sign of the weak, because they are blinded and can only destroy.
That’s right, they aren’t going to overcome their irrational fears. They’ll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future until it becomes normal and they realize the sky didn’t fall. I actually had hope that we were on the verge of a strong progressive wave, but then millions of people decided not to show up because Harris wasn’t perfect enough for them. So basically fuck y’all, and good luck with the whole People’s Front of Judea vs the Judean People’s Front deal. The thing about MAGA is they fucking show up, and they’re gonna keep showing the fuck up. Idiots need to figure out that you don’t make change happen by turning away when your ideal options don’t appear on a menu so you can click on one and go back to scrolling. /end rant
I think what you’re missing is that for most Socialists, electoralism has already been proven as a losing game to begin with, and is far below the minimum requirements to enact change. Real power comes from organizing, which is why Leftists always push for it (and when it happens, they get results).
I think what people are missing is Trump/Vance being the worst possible outcome. But yes, real power does come from organizing - not from sitting in front of a screen “raising awareness”.
The worst possible outcome is really perpetuating this horrible system to begn with.
I agree, which is exactly what refusing to participate does. Lazy rationalizations help the oligarchs as much as money and brainwashing.
Participating in the electoral system also perpetuates it, the Capitalists don’t care who wins because they already approve of both major parties.
Okay if changing the system through the system is impossible then what’s your plan?
Revolution, which requires worker organization and the building of dual power, as has been done successfully in many countries.
It had everything to do with human greed.
As long as there is the suggestion or possibility, no matter how remote that anyone of us can become enormously wealthy, we won’t want to change the system.
I don’t know what worse, the corruption of communism or the corruption of capitalism. Right now, we’re in the American Nightmare stage of capitalism. Seems to me humanity can’t have an economic system where a group of people want all the wealth and power.
What do you mean “corruption of Communism?”
I love how people act like their knowledge alone somehow makes them better than their peers, just utilizing knowledge to appear aloof, or above it all, when in reality, if capitalism shot itself in the chest and socialism took over tomorrow, we would still have the same rich 1% families stealing from the working class and none of us would actually be in any better a position because no damned political system to date has figured out how to keep the rich from sacrificing the poor for their own selfish ends. End of story. Time to change.
That’s not historically accurate, though. Socialist states have made dramatic improvements to the lives of the working class and generally dramatically reduced wealth disparity, such as in the USSR. This seems to be more political apathy than genuine analysis.
Not only is this ahistorical, it’s self-contradictory. If the same rich 1% still owns the means of production and is still expropriating the working class’ surplus value, then capitalism never died and socialism never took over.
Capitalism sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats, and socialism also sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats.
Remember Stalin and his style of socialism? Just because one hell sucks doesn’t mean another hell is better.
The only type of socialism which has made any kind of sense in recent times is the Nordic Model.
Edit let’s not kid ourselves about the “greatness” of socialist countries when China has 50% poverty rate
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country
Here’s also a great article on how everyday life was like in the Soviet Union, https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en
Capitalism doesn’t suck because of individual bad actors, but systemic issues. Competition naturally results in monopolization and the death of competition, and rising disparity. In addition, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall results in businesses and corporations seeking to move production abroad, to over-exploit and under-develop countries in the Global South by paying poverty wages. This extends to IMF loans, as well.
Socialism doesn’t have these same problems. No, it isn’t some perfect system, such a claim would be absurd. However, collectivization of Capital and producing with the aim of fulfilling needs, rather than pursuit of profit, helps to eliminate the excesses of Capitalist exploitation. In addition to the reduction in exploitation, central planning is very efficient once competition stagnates.
It’s funny that you bring up the Nordic model, Nordic countries are seeing withering safety nets, (and are Capitalist, not Socialist) which in turn are generally funded from the same hyper-exploitation of the Global South in the form of brutal IMF loans and unequal exchange. The Safety Nets themselves came as concessions towards strong internal labor organization and the strong safety nets of the neighboring USSR, who had free high quality healthcare, education, and more. Now that the USSR is gone, the safety nets have been withering.
I wouldn’t say decaying Imperialist ethno states are a “good” model to look towards.
I mean, every country to date has been an ethnostate of one type or another, with the exception of what America wanted or purported to be. I’d add Canada and Australia to that as well. Have a look at these socialists states, which one isn’t centered around a dominant ethnicity? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states. So I don’t think using the label of “ethnostate” to disparage democratic counties is justified.
Second, I agree that the global south is heavily exploited, but that seriously discounts successful countries in BRICS or East Asia. We need to understand why those countries succeeded, and others could not, and a lot of the failures of global south actors have to do with corruption and lack of solidarity with each other. Granted, imperial powers instigated instability in every continent, but it didn’t work many times, especially in East Asia. Africa is a great example of failing to realize its potential, a unionized Africa would be a force to reckon with. The “global south” needs to stop blaming convenient scapegoats for many of its own problems. You can’t be like, oh once we fix greed everything will be okay! How do you ever propose to fix greed? Even if the whole world agrees to be socialist, examples like Stalins USSR show us that greed exists to corrupt any economic and political model. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise.
I am not saying we have to be capitalist, I am saying it’s disingenuous to say that greed occurs because of capitalism, and not the other way around. You don’t have to dismantle the whole world to start taxing wealthy people at a higher rate, and start using those funds in a sensible way like they do in the Nordic model.
The Nordic countries are pretty clearly among the most ethnically homogenous and at a state level quite hostile to foreigners and immigrants. This is pretty clear cut and dry. The US, Australia, etc are more Settler-Colonial. The Nordics certainly have stronger labor organization, which helps, but ultimately rely on Imperialism and again, are decaying like the rest of the Global North.
As for the Glonal South, I think you’re vastly misanalyzing the situation. BRICS is successful despite the Imperialist countries, the blame should not be on the oppressed but the oppressors. Such a blame is akin to Macron’s recent statement that African countries should be greatful to the French for colonizing them and making them “sovereign nations.” The Imperialists aren’t merely a convenient scapegoat, but regularly exploiting them. Countries like Burkina Faso and Algeria became the extreme targets of Empire for daring to go against the Imperialist countries, it isn’t like countries can just “say no” to Imperialism.
As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism. It’s pretty unquestionable that the working class had far more power back then, with some of the best education and healthcare in the world provided entirely free. The Soviets were advancing science and global healthcare. It’s worth listening to Dr. Michael Parenti’s 1986 speech, affectionately titled “Yellow Parenti.” Socialism may not be perfect, but that doesn’t mean it is equally bad to Capitalism, and to pretend “greed” impacts all economic systems equally is a failed form of logic without doing the legwork of proving that.
Circling back to the Nordics, the model only “works” inasmuch as the Nordic Countries currently function as global parasites on the labor of the Global South, like the rest of the Global North, their model depends on this, and as the tendency for the rate of profit persists they are introducing more austerity measures and weakening the safety nets, disparity is rising, and worker protections are falling. Higher unionization rates slow this process, but can’t stop it, Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.
You don’t have to dismantle the world, it has prepared the foundations for moving beyond the current system into a Socialist one. Centralization and monopolization of markets paves the way for public ownership and central planning to be a smooth transition. Socialists don’t want to tear down the system, but to move beyond it to the next Mode of Production via erasure of the Capitalist state and replacing with a Proletarian one.
I didn’t misunderstand anything about BRICS, I said exactly what you’re saying, that these countries succeeded because they were more unified in their approach to outside instigators. Corruption (greed) and lack of unity has been the bane of the failure examples you’re citing.
Please spare me the oppression politics slogans. You can’t live your life on other people’s charity anymore than you can run a country on the good will of others. People will always be assholes to each others, and it’s the responsibility of leaders in a country to give a shit and figure out how to make their country survive. Look at the history of Singapore, and how much outside influence tried to destabilize it. The point is that the root cause of failure in many nations is within, not without.
As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism.
I don’t know, this is questionable. A lot of science and tech achievements were more related to competition with capitalists nations. It’s hard to say at this point, nothing happened in a vacuum.
Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not “sensible,” it’s dying.
The Nordic Model is socialism, it just co-exists with a regulated capitalism. You’re wrong about any death of this model, if you look at GDP growth https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/nordic-gdp-growth-returns-to-pre-pandemic-levels/. It has its issues, but it’s a far better alternative to becoming subjugated by Stalin-like overlords and/or having everyone be equally poor.
You’re just going to have to live with the fact that some people will always reject the centralized proletariat control of production because 1) people, even in socialist systems, will always be greedy and cannot be trusted, and 2) people desire individuality and autonomy. A persons life is finite, they’re not here to be a slave for capitalist or to be a bee in the hive mind, there needs to be a system which lets someone exercise their individuality and autonomy without creating social ruin.
The Nordic Model is socialism
It is not socialism. I already went over this upthread:
First sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
The social safety nets in the imperial core—which are built on the backs of the neocolonized—are not socialism.
You legitimately are arguing that it is the fault of Imperialized countries for being Imperialized? I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, here, this is what it sounds like you are saying to me. The leaders of a country, especially those in Imperialized countries, do not necessarily have the best interests of their populace in mind and frequently sell out the populace for money to Imperialists, and are placed in said positions by said Imperialists.
It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.
The Nordic model is not Socialism. The Nordic model is Capitalism, though with more generous social safety nets than most Capitalist countries. GDP growth is not what I am referring to, I am talking about a declining Rate of Profit and the erosion of safety nets. It is not better than Socialism, which democratizes the economy and uplifts the working class.
As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.
Some leaders of a country indeed do not have its best interests in mind because they’re self-interested. This is why it helps to have an educated public, and a democratic system of governance. When I look at all the countries subjugated by imperialists, I notice that each one of them has its own reasons for failing and succeeding, that’s all I am saying. It’s easy to distract your citizens by saying that all your problems are the fault of those greedy capitalists.
It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.
You’re whitewashing history. Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model. There have been many analyses on the quality of life under the Soviet Union, and I’ll specifically mention only these sources since you’re so intent on painting a picture of harmony and glory
https://www.ranker.com/list/life-in-the-soviet-union/kellen-perry
I am not interested in “winning” for one economic tool or another. What I don’t like is someone pretending the bad stuff didn’t happen, or blaming all the bad stuff on someone else. It’s childish and disingenuous.
As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.
No, this is just rose glasses idealism and isn’t backed by any facts or history. What is backed by facts is that humans are greedy, self-interested and self-preserving in any scenario.
From a source (linked below):
As the 1990s progressed, the Stalinist period and the first half of the twentieth century in general increasingly retained the attention of scholars interested in the Soviet Union. Everyday Soviet life was seen as a history of repression, rationing, privation, famine, “survival strategies,” control, and social stratification. It was intimately tied to the campaign for Soviet culturedness (kul’turnost’), meaning the inculcation of proper manners and taste, which began in the second half of the 1930s. In these years, the regime recognized the legitimacy of consumption, notably through slogans proclaiming that life “became better and gayer” with the introduction of luxury consumer goods (Soviet champagne, caviar, chocolate, perfume, etc.), which were nonetheless accessible only to groups that the regime considered privileged.
Indeed, the distribution of objects as rewards was central to the social policies of Communist countries. Following the October Revolution, the distribution of noble and bourgeois property among workers and Bolshevik leaders at all levels, which was part of an urban campaign for housing redistribution, lent concrete meaning to the reversal of social hierarchies and confirmed the right of the neediest citizens to oppress those who were once the most privileged within the latter’s own apartments, which were now transformed into communal residences.
https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en
One more for reference:
Soviet beggars found themselves in an ambivalent situation. The authorities wanted to exclude them from the future Communist society, but, incapable of solving the begging problem, they simply concealed it from the 1930s until the mid-1950s so as not to contradict the USSR’s image as a prosperous state —even as they made it impossible to devise any form of welfare policy towards them. The launch of a program aimed at solving the begging problem in the second half of the 1950s led to a debate in the press, which exposed the contradictions between the official discourse and social reality.
The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.
The countries aren’t necessarily underdeveloped, they are over-exploited. The absolute vast majority of the resources and value they creste is taken for the Global North, the fact that the United States and other Western Powers regularly commit regime change isn’t somehow the fault of the Imperialized. This is a monstrous view of the world you have, which is why I asked you to clarify yourself several times. You claim it a lack of education, and yet don’t see the connection between that and all of the Socialist and post-Socialist countries having the highest literacy rates in the world? Under-education is the tool by which Imperialists keep Imperialized countries docile, and when they start to take control of their own resources like Burkina Faso under Sankara, they pull regime change.
Secondly, the USSR. They didn’t go from “relatively little” to “less little,” they went from a semi-feudal backwater to the second largest economy in the world, and did so while under constant siege. Again, life expectancy doubled literacy rates over tripled, they managed to take on the vast majority of the Nazis (80% of Nazi deaths were on the Eastern Front) and took Berlin, healthcare and education was free, working hours were shorter than the US with greater vacation days, all with rapid economic growth and low inequality. Linking right-wing think tanks designed to massage narratives can’t erase the numerical facts.
You were linked many extensive primary and scholarly sources by people like @Edie@lemmy.ml and you return with right-wing think tanks, which is rude at best and shows a lack of care. The bare minimum you could do is read Anticommunism & Wonderland, which is a subset of Blackshirts and Reds, though you really should read any of the books provided.
Finally, again, the Nordic Model is not Socialism. The Working Class is oppressed by the bourgeoisie within the countries, and the Nordic Countries heavily exploit the Global South. Not everyone can copy the Nordic Model because it requires mass international exploitation, which you argued is the fault of the Imperialized in an earlier section, so I guess that clarifies your worldview a bit. In short: brutal expropriation and Imperialism is a good thing, more should do it even harder, and it’s the fault of the Imperialized for not picking them up by their bootstraps (despite them picking up the Global North by its bootstraps, and the Global North acting like they earned the riches they stole).
Try to reread this comment section, and legitimately ask yourself if half-assed right-wing think tank articles are better than Primary and Scholarly secondary sources, and if you want to be that dedicated to justifying brutal exploitation and encouraging more of it.
Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model.
What bigger picture is there than improvements in material quality of life conditions, like calories available and infant mortality rates and life expectancy and literacy levels and gender equality and and and? And what is that but the socioeconomic conditions? Before the revolution this was an preindustrial, illiterate, feudal state of desperately precarious peasants. And after the revolution it was war-torn, and continuously threatened by imperialist states, and then, not long after, invaded by the WWII Axis powers. And still the material conditions of the masses improved by leaps & bounds compared to their starting position.
The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.
Again, the “Nordic model” has been predicated on spoils of neocolonialism. How do the neocolonized feel about their subjugation and oppression? And under decades of grinding neoliberalism, the social safety nets have been eroding all over the imperial core, and the bourgeoisie aren’t going to give them back even if they could (which they can’t, especially now that the empire is deteriorating). These are bourgeois democracies, they’re not proletarian ones.
51·11 days agoRemember Stalin and his style of socialism?
No. Cuz I wasn’t alive at that time.
But yea, I did read about it in This Soviet World, Soviet Democracy, Russian Justice, and Blackshirts and Reds
Cool, also read about it on neutral sources
Wikipedia, especially English language Wikipedia, ain’t exactly neutral. And anyway “neutral” is fantasy. It doesn’t exist.
Anyone can edit it, what’s your problem?
Sure, anyone can edit. It’s just the invisible hand of the marketplace of ideas. and I have a bridge to sell you.
- The primary editor of Wikipedia is a fascist named Steven Pruitt. Steven currently works for the Dept. of Customs and Border Protection, where he’s been for four years, and the 8 years before that he worked for TSA and ICE.
- CIA and FBI computers used for Wikipedia edits
- Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages
- Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust
How does that discount my point? Anyone can edit it.
And your edits will be reverted and you will be banned
“neutral” as if.
Edit: also oh no! Not the Stalinist… prohibition on using handcuffs?
Chapter X, Russian Justice
But the idea was there in the minds of those who were to define the penal policy and the Code of 1922, and set down the principle that punishment was not for the purpose of revenge and might not have for its purpose the infliction of physical pain. With this beginning there was a steady progress toward the removing of those indignities that tend to degrade a man, until the Correctional Labor Code of 1933 completed the process. In the meantime various amendments have prohibited torture, the use of handcuffs, solitary confinement, deprivation of food, or any other measure that would have the effect of degradation or do physical harm to the person.
lol what a cherry picked example, ignoring ranks of his people getting picked up by state agents to be put to death. How disingenuous
Which ranks of his people were put to death?
Even in Stalin’s time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.
A lot of the cold war propaganda about Stalin turned out to be bullshit, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you.
Please stop trying to fool people with your revisionist and rose colored glasses historical fiction. Cherry picking some out of context quote is just disingenuous, and doesn’t make sense for me to continue discussing this then.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin
Nazis and Kulaks weren’t “ranks” of “Stalin’s people,” they were fascists and leeches on the masses of the peasantry, respectively. And Wikipedia gets its “excess” mortality numbers from garbage sources the like fascist propaganda The Black Book of Communism.
You can’t help but refer to Wikipedia, can you, when this whole thread was about Wikipedia’s questionable reliability on topics that relate to Western imperialist talking points?
Now do excess mortality in Tsarist Russia and excess mortality in Russia after the collapse of the USSR.
Also, fucking hilarious to look at excess mortality in a period where world war 2 happened, lol.
Jesus, how fucking illiterate are westerners that they think fucking Wikipedia is a neutral source.
It’s worth responding to your edit in a separate comment.
First, China. That data shows 45% living under $10 a day, and has no data provided on the “poverty rate” column. Not only are you misreporting by 11%, but you are conveniently reporting the wrong data. Essentially, you reported the wrong quantity for the wrong quality. Furthermore, this data is half a decade old, when we know 3 years ago China completed a mass poverty aleviation campaign and over the course of around a decade uplifted 800 million people out of poverty.
Furthermore, 10 dollars gets you far more in different parts of China than the wealthier coastal cities, who were the first to be developed more thoroughly. Given that a century ago China was among the poorest countries in the world, its progress has been astounding overall, and in the more rural inland areas have been a major focus in the last decade. Unlike more developed countries, China is still a developing country, and as such despite its rapid improvement has a long way to go before every area is like one of the more developed tier 1 cities.
Secondly, the USSR. Not only is this article from a Private Christian College, it does’t contradict that, again, wealth disparity shrank to one of the lowest in the world while maintaining some of the highest rates of economic growth in the world, free, high quality education and healthcare were provided, literacy rates more than tripled to the highest in the world, science, technology, culture, and even sports flourished. Life expectancy doubled, and despite having much of their housing destroyed by the Nazi invasion in WWII, they quickly built the now stereotyped “soviet bloc” housing to house as many people as possible.
All the article really seems to say, therefore, is that society wasn’t perfect, which nobody here has said. It does not make the case that the Socialist system was worse than the semi-feudalism of before or the Capitalism it is today, rather, it just said some degree of corruption existed but in a way that was far less than it was before or after Socialism.
The fact that you are either intentionally or unintentionally reporting wrong numbers for wrong metrics that are already outdated as some “gotcha” for countries that began as some of the poorest on the planet, and use the fact that the aren’t like the Nordic Countries, that have spend centuries pillaging and looting the Global South and had centuries longer to develop, is dishonest and ill-informed. I suggest reading Super Imperialism by Hudson if you want to take a modern (2021 is the latest revision) look at the way the Global North, and specifically the US, rob and loot the world.
I can’t take anything you’re saying seriously because it’s just delusional, I am sorry.
Why do I say what you’re saying is delusional. Look, you’re opining about some made up thing I said (btw, I said 50% as a rough figure looking at the color bar, it’s 45.8%), but you’re neglecting that the many, many capitalists nations have MUCH LESS POOR PEOPLE PER CAPITA than China. So what exactly am I supposed to do, take their way of governance as something to aspire to? No, thank you. I am not anti-social and I hope better for others.
Stalin’s USSR proved that elitism and greed infects all economic tools and social ideologies. We also see this in China because no one is effectively allowed to own their home, the land is leased by the government. So consider this, if socialists like Stalin care so much about people, and the CPP is the modern equivalent of an anti-capitalist (not pure socialist) state, then what do you do with the 45.8% people making $10 per day (the US is at a hellish 2.2%). Why hasn’t China fixed their poverty by now?
In Stalins USSR, why were there bread lines for the common folk while their leaders had caviar and chocolate.** I am sure that’s because they weren’t “real” socialists, and I am sure you’ll do better!
Let’s also remember, that Stalin stole properties from the gentry, and made them mixed housing, but he and his family still lived in mansions. These are historical facts, just because you don’t like the people who say them doesn’t erase them from existence or history.
https://hum54-15.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/exhibits/show/russian_dacha/joseph-stalin-s-dacha--the-ric
I also find it hilarious that communists will preach socialism to those who reside in capitalist countries, completely neglecting that converting to Stalin or China type socialism will make the average American poorer because at least 60% of Americans actually own their own property, the land is not leased. So power to the minority 40% or 2.2% making less than $10 per day? The revolution surely will be great for the majority!
I am not saying there aren’t things to fix, I just find the communists and socialists arguing with such passion and zeal and sophistry to be inherently disingenuous because the facts show that they’re only interested in enriching themselves, so they mobilize people instead of armies to achieve that goal.
Wealth per citizen by country, fyi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
It’s extremely simple, the Capitalist countries wealthier than China are wealthier because they colonize and loot the world. This isn’t delusion, but fact. China has solved their major poverty issues as I linked, it seems you think that the instant a country adopts a system it instantaneously takes on the form of a maximally developed version of itself as if time doesn’t exist. The PRC is growing at a far faster rate than the dying Capitalist countries in the Global North.
As for the USSR, it’s not at all a problem to appropriate housing from the gentry, and wealth disparity dramatically lowered. Both the PRC and USSR are real examples of Socialism, handing out food to those who need it and ending famine in a country where famine was cyclical under the Tsar is a good thing.
As for USians, the majority would get wealthier without Capitalists expropriating from them like Bezos and Musk, I have no idea where you think wealth would evaporate to. By owning production in common and directing among a common plan, median wealth rises, as happens in AES coutries.
It’s pretty disingenuous when you pretend Communists and Socialists to only be interested in enriching themselves when you have been given many primary and scholarly secondary sources proving much the opposite. I have done what you wanted and checked your sources, but despite your claims that you would check out the sources others have listed it’s clear you actually haven’t. The only conclusion, therefore, is that you don’t actually care, and just want to argue online.
It’s not okay to take others peoples stuff just because you want it. That’s barbaric and uncivil.
It’s better to implement taxes and democratically decide how those revenues should be used.
Edit I am not going to bother responding to the rest of your post, it’s clear that you’re willing to paint a rosy picture on any pile of bodies and call it day.
Gotcha, so you agree that Capitalists should not be able to steal from workers and you no longer support Imperialism, right?
Yeah, I’ve never liked the oligarchic and kleptocratic side of capitalism, that’s exactly what I said in my first post.
That entirely contradicts yourself though. You don’t support Capitalism, but you don’t support the only way it has been replaced historically.
There are no “other sides” to capitalism than the oligarchy and their imperialist projects that you say you have never liked.
The US has never been and will never be a democracy, because it was born of a bourgeois revolution[1]. The wealthy, white, male, land-owning, largely slave-owning Founding Fathers constructed a bourgeois state with “checks and balances” against the “tyranny of the majority”. It was never meant to represent the majority—the working class—and it never has, despite eventually allowing women and non-whites (at least those not disenfranchised by the carceral system) to vote. [Princeton & Northwestern] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy
I also find it hilarious that communists will preach socialism to those who reside in capitalist countries, completely neglecting that converting to Stalin or China type socialism will make the average American poorer because at least 60% of Americans actually own their own property, the land is not leased.
- How do you not understand the difference between private property and personal property?
- 93% of Chinese people own their own homes, vs 66% of Americans.
This has gotten ridiculous. You’ve shown over and over that don’t know anything about anything, but you keep on going anyway.
And you’ve shown time and time again that you choose to misrepresent things. No one owns anything in China lol, the government leases the land.
That is true for private property, meaning land for resource extraction and for situating factories & offices, not for personal property, meaning homes to live in.
Why do insist on being confidently incorrect over and over?
Okay, here’s someone else then, basically there’s no ownership on land by anyone in China.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Sino/comments/vychg7/how_does_home_ownership_work_in_china/
The 90% figure also excludes rural residents, so it’s probably inflated.
Removed by mod
State Capitalism went away when they transitioned away from the NEP and went for a more collectivized economy. I think you need to brush up more on theory.
Most people just want to be left alone and socialism is the farthest thing from being left alone. They say there is no private property in socialism but really you become the property.
Wanting to be “left alone” is more a consequence of the alienation caused by the Capitalist system, humans are very social animals. No idea what you mean by “becoming the property,” that doesn’t make any sense.
We’re social with small groups of people not governments or people we have never met. I’m a person by the way, a social one, so I am speaking from experience.
Regardless of our will, increasingly complex production forces further connection. Decentralization only attempts to turn back this clock, it isn’t a solution. You are speaking from your experience as presumably a worker within Capitalism, which necessarily ends up atomizing individuals and destroys the social fabric of society in pursuit of profit. That’s why over time, more people have become fascinated by the idea of moving to Alaska or some remote area and becoming a self-sustainable farmer, but if Socialism is accomplished these desires erode.
deleted by creator
This definition of “social” from Oxford is probably most accurate, to how I am using the word:
- needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities. “we are social beings as well as individuals”
I interact with the government but I would hardly call it social. They send me paper asking for taxes, I send them taxes. I vote but that’s just filling out a form. It’s transactional, the government provides services. In rare cases I do have conversations with people who work for the government but I wouldn’t say Im social with the goverment through them. That would be like saying you’re social with Ronald McDonald by eating a cheeseburger.
I really would prefer the government leave me alone as much as possible and I think most people feel this way. I don’t think people want any organizations bothering them. How many times do you see a sign on someones door reading “solicite please” or see people hanging out down at the DMV talking about rules and regulations, or whatever. Never. People hate going to the DMV, they do it as little as possible.
We’re social with friends (usually people we went to school with), family, coworkers, neighbors, acquaintances, and some people we deal with on a regular basis. Small groups, like Dunbar’s number small.
deleted by creator
That’s a clear projection
Well, can you explain your perspective then?
Considering capitalists are the ones ACTUALLY hellbent on turning you into a product & suceeded in it (E.g: Selling your personal information)
Eh, Capitalism will do what it can to turn a profit, which includes things that are good for society. People are fucking dumb and they do not read ToS or EULA, they just sign up for “free” shit and get advertised to while companies track them, spy on them, etc.
Even when you tell people about their data, they don’t care. I literally have a shirt which reads “they sell your data” by the way, I take it more seriously, and I feel like a fucking nut. I mean, I feel like the only sane person but you know, if every room smells like dog shit check your shoes.
Ah a fellow privacy enthusiast
Socialism has been tried many times in all forms but pure unregulated capitalism hasn’t yet.
Pure unregulated Capitalism can’t exist though, there’s no such thing as a “pure” system to begin with.
The impure regulations corrupt the free hand of the market.
Is the market some form of holy spirit? Regulation comes from the market, not despite it.
Regulation opposes the market.
Regulation restricts competition, and is a natural result of companies using accumulated Capital to institutionalize their own positions and maintain a given edge. Capitalism erases its own existence.
I think we’re both saying the same thing.
Maybe, but you phrase it like we can have unregulated Capitalism for any period longer than an afternoon, and I’m explaining why we can’t.
I wish I had the confidence to just say whatever shit I pulled out of thin air like that
It’s a well known opinion in McCartney-Lennonism.
Oh yeah? List the forms.
In this case wouldn’t it make more sense to list the forms it hasn’t been tried in?
No
