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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, then.
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
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
What you’re talking about here are results of industrialization. The same can be said for capitalist countries during the Industrial Revolution.
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.
LMAO