this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
997 points (93.9% liked)
Memes
45729 readers
921 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most steadily improved their material conditions and did not have dictatorships.
Explain, please.
Are you saying most Communist countries intentionally started wars?
Most didn't? Can you give a few exemples then?
You don't start a war unintentionally... but i didn't say start, just being in a war.
Also i don't imply it was because of communism, my point is that, how can we judge communism if other devastating sociological factors are involved.
Now, i don't have a point if you say most of them were better for it, but i don't know any who did so i'd love to educate myself...
A few examples include the USSR, Cuba, PRC, etc. Life standards dramatically improved, life expectancy doubled in the USSR and PRC and jumped around half in Cuba, literacy rates jumped to 99%+ from less than 50% prior, education access, healthcare access, food access, housing access, all dramatically improved. Wealth inequality also fell down dramatically.
Here's an example of wealth inequality over time in Russia:
And how the Soviet Democratic process functioned:
So USSR was a dictatorship, the country was in ruin after WW2
The 3 factor i mentioned are there.
The data shows what everyone knows, capitalism increase inequality. But what it doesn't show is how communism made the country improve, because it didn't.
What i'm saying is, it couldn't help because of the war and Stalin. We don't know if it would've otherwise.
Cuba again is a dictatorship, and wasn't rich.
The PRC is a dictatorship, China went on a horrible famine with Mao. Nowadays getting richer only because of how their economy is now fully capitalist.
So let's say you had significant data that showed it improved some things socially. And let say you somehow managed to prove its causal and not coincidence.
I would still rather not say dictatorships like USSR or PRC are good to live under.
That's my point, even if communism was good, dictatorship is a plague that makes any system a nightmare.
No, not even the CIA thought the USSR was a dictatorship. You can't just make unsourced blanket claims based on your emotions.
Yes, they did around 4/5ths of the fighting against the Nazis in totality.
If you conjure them into existence from your imagination, sure.
GDP per capita rose dramatically, wealth inequality dropped massively, life expectancy doubled, literacy rates trippled. The USSR had free healthcare and education, and guaranteed housing and employment. They ended famine, and made it to space from being a semi-feudal semi-industrialized nation 50 years prior. They democratized the government structure. Life absolutely improved not only under Communism, but because of it.
What on Earth are you trying to say? Of course the USSR had to focus on its military to survive, which impeded consumer good production, but life absolutely improved.
Cuba is richer than under Batista despite a cruel embargo, and isn't a dictatorship. You keep throwing out unsourced opinions as though they are facts.
The PRC practices whole-process people's democracy, the famine under Mao was the last famine in China's history of frequent famines, and China is Socialist, it has a Socialist Market Economy based on Socialism With Chinese Characteristics.
I have.
You would have sided with the Tsars? The Kuomintang? The Russian Federation? What on Earth are you talking about, here? You'd rather live in societies with less freedom and lower quality of life metrics?
You have no point, only vibes and a firehose of falsehood. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Sorry i'm harsh Cuba isn't quite a dictatorship i give you that one (Although not quite democratic either), maybe that could be a good study.
But saying Stalin or Mao are not dictatorships is just delusional.
The CIA as a source is pretty funny though.
I get it Stalin didn't quite have all powers, like that's what it took to classify a government a dictatorship. As if one-party system couldn't be complex.
(And yes socialist market economy, that really makes a world of difference from capitalist market)
Also to make things clear i wouldn't have sided with tsar or anyone else than Lenin. I do believe in communism.
Now some improvements may be from communism, i hope so, but don't pretend you can prove it more than i. It's not like life expectancy, literacy rate or other factors alike couldn't rise with another system. It's not like you could eliminate the possibility of third factors in a time with so much change in all areas of life.
But i sure wouldn't have followed Stalin in his totalitarian regime. I sure hope if communism was a solution today it would be democratic.
They weren't, Mao was democratically recalled, even. Stalin was elected as well, and neither had total control.
Is having a single party all it takes to not be democratic, in your eyes? Even if everything is decided democratically?
Yes, it absolutely does, which is why China has large public infrastructure projects, large levels of state planning, is beating climate goals, and has had climbing metrics for the proletariat, instead of falling metrics.
Yet you speak endlessly as a left anticommunist. Is the only communism you support the fictional kind in your fantasies?
These metrics rose with Communism and fell with Capitalism. It's cut and dry why they happened.
The literal CIA didn't believe Stalin was totalitarian, and I proved it to be democratic with an infographic on how it functioned. You can even read Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan to see how it functioned.
Please, read a history book instead of parroting state propaganda, and read Marx, Engels, Lenin, and other Marxists for theory, instead of wikipedia.
Are you a commie?
Of course, I'm a Marxist-Leninist. Most people on Lemmy are leftist of some sort.
Most of us here are communists. Anti-communist platforms like reddit already exist.
Holy cow you people are real. Wild
Crazy right? A lot of us were once liberals or worse. If you have any questions, just ask.
What did all the countries that tried communism get wrong? I've heard things like it only works on paper and when you try to actually do it humans fuck it all up by being greedy. My dad used to say that. Then he was killed by some commies. Just kidding. But for real you think it's possible? How do we stop the people in power from taking everything for themselves. It's what's happened everytime no?
What are you specifically referencing here? No AES state is or has been perfect, that would be a ludicrous assertion. If you specify, we can analyze or fix misconceptions.
This is a misunderstanding of "Human Nature" and Communism itself. First of all, the Mode of Production determines the ideology, laws, etc. Which in turn reinforce the Mode of Production, like this graphic shows:
There is no "Human Nature," greed is more prevalent among Capitalist countries because of Capitalism. Secondly, even if humans are greedy, that doesn't mean Communism doesn't work, that's unexplained.
Yes, Socialism has already been implemented and we know it works. Are you referring to upper-stage Communism, ie a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society? Yes, eventually.
This is a made-up concern, wealth disparity goes way down in AES countries, like this graphic for the USSR shows:
This is thanks to mechanisms like Recall Elections and other democratization methods, like this model of Soviet Democracy:
I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, it's a very good book for dispelling myths around Communism.
They succeeded in overthrowing the ruling classes of their respective countries. The difficulty of organizing societies came after. Bureaucracy, infighting and external pressures strained social relations. Despite this, many prospered for decades. So, it is possible to do again.
Rationally, some type of socialism (democratic socialism, anarchism, or Marxist-Leninism) is necessary due to climate change. Natural disasters, droughts, floods, supply shortages will continue and wreak havoc on economies. Capitalism requires growth; and that era is ending. Markets will narrow; the solution is planned economies.
Our only hope is for the people to control this transition and prevent reactionaries from seizing power. This transition will not be perfect. It will falter and have setbacks. But it is necessary for the benefit of humanity. There are frameworks on how to organize societies after capitalism. The Participatory Economy podcast will answer many questions.