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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, how did Canada managed to get on this list? And Switszerland?
Parlamentary democracy is real thing. Usually it is called parlamentary republic. Nothing special, most of Europe works this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_democracy
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.
And I’m didn’t say parlament should be strictly legislative body.
deleted by creator
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.
What makes it require capitalism suddenly?
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
Last time I checked sheikh-esque palaces and yachts are something that is not communism. Same goes for Putin’s oligarchs.
For some reason I see them less than few years ago. I wonder why…
And where did Putin come from?
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
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.
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?
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?
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 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.
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.
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
LMAO