You're viewing a single thread.
I don't know what it's like to live under communism, but I do know what it's like to live under capitalism and it's grip tightens more and more with every passing year.
I don't think anyone knows what it's like, was there any communist country which wasn't also both a dictatorship and poor?
Pretty hard seeing the good and bad of communism when it's always alongside the two worse things that can happen to a country.
P.S. Wait, actually not the two worse things... there's also war, and that applies to most of them too.
Fascists masquerading as communism doesn't count
Capitalism doesn't benefit the vast majority of us. But the purpose of capitalism is to enrich a fortunate few at the expense of the rest of us who will be reduced to perpetual wage slavery until we die. Capitalism is working a treat in that regard.
That point is def made in that link.
Have you read my comment?
I know capitalism don't work, everybody does now.
That has nothing to do with the fact we didn't manage to have one successful exemple of communism either...
I don't have a post for this, but also as a testament to China's poverty alleviation campaigns, world poverty is increasing if we exclude China.
When they write the history of the early 21st century, China's uplifting of millions of people out of poverty will be one of humanity's greatest acheivements.
China cannot be trusted because what they report and what actually happens in the country are two different things.
Actually watch Chinese Media sometime, it's laughable, you got crews bragging about how well stocked the gorcery stores are despite empty shelves and hungry protesters being visible in the shot.
Wrong, from the link I posted:
Capitalist hegemony has short-circuited people into buying wildly illogical and ridiculous propaganda like: "Lift yourselves up by the bootstraps" (which shows the almost religious power of capitalist propaganda, that the impossible can become possible), or "Communism doesn't work", when in fact Communism did work extremely well.
Examples from this post by /u/bayarea415, Stephen Gowans - Do publicly owned, planned economies work, Ian Goodrum - Socialism vs Capitalism and quality of life, and yogthos's USSR acheivements post about the USSR specifically:
- USSR had a more nutritious diet than the US, according to the CIA. Calories consumed surpassed the US. source. Ended famines.
- Productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. It was illegal to hire others and accumulate personal wealth from their labor.
- Had the 2nd fastest growing economy of the 20th century after Japan. The USSR started out at the same level of economic development and population as Brazil in 1920, which makes comparisons to the US, an already industrialized country by the 1920s, even more spectacular.
- Free Universal Health care, and most doctors per capita in the world. 42 doctors per 10k population, vs 24 in Denmark and Sweden, 19 in US.
- Had near zero unemployment, continuous economic growth for 70 straight years. The "continuous" part should make sense – the USSR was a planned, non-market economy, so market crashes á la capitalism were pretty much impossible.
- USSR moved from 58.5-hour workweeks to 41.6 hour workweeks (-0.36 h/yr) between 1913 and 1960
- USSR averaged 22 days of paid leave in 1986 while USA averaged 7.6 in 1996., 2
- In 1987, people in the USSR could retire with pension at 55 (female) and 60 (male) while receiving 50% of their wages at a at minimum. Meanwhile, in USA the average retirement age was 62-67.
- All education, including university level, free. 2
- 99% literacy.
- Saved the world from Fascism, Taking on the majority of Nazi divisions, and killing 90% of Nazi soldiers. Bore the enormous cost of blood and pain in WW2 (25M dead), with the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare.. An estimated 70% of Soviet housing was destroyed by Nazi invasion. Nazis were in retreat after the battle of Stalingrad in 1942, a full 2 years before the US landed troops in normandy.
- Doubled life expectancy. Eliminated poverty.
- Combatted sex inequality. Equal wages for men and women mandated by law, but sex inequality, although not as pronounced as under capitalism, was perpetuated in social roles. Very important lesson to learn.
- Combatted Racial inequality.
- Feudalism to space travel in 40 years. First satellite, rocket, space walk, woman, man, animal, space station, moon and mars probes.
- Soviet power production per capita in 1990 was more than the EU, Great Britain, or China's in 2014.
- Housing was socialized by localized community organizations, and there was virtually no homelessness. Houses were often shared by two families throughout the 20s and 30s – so unlike capitalism, there were no empty houses, but the houses were very full. In the 40s there was the war, and in the 50s there were a number of orphans from the war. The mass housing projects began in the 60s, they were completed in the 70s, and by the 70s, there were homeless people, but they often had genuine issues with mental health.
- 66% of Russians polled in 2015 want the USSR back. The story is the same for all the former eastern-bloc countries: 72% of Hungarians say their country is worse off now than under communism, 57% of East Germans, 63% of Romanians, 77% of Czechs, 81% of Serbs (for Yugoslavia), 70% of Ukrainians, 60% of Bulgarians.
When it is claimed that a system works, we should ask, who it works for. Capitalism benefits a tiny number of rapacious capitalists, to the detriment of the rest of us, while Socialism works for the masses.
For an overview of the soviet experiment, watch this brilliant talk by Micheal Parenti, or read his article, Left anticommunism, the unkindest cut.
Also read this great article by Stephen Gowans, Do publicly owned, planned economies work?. Audio on youtube
Bonus vid about cyber-communism: Paul Cockshott - Going beyond money.
More sources: Socialism Crash Course, Socialism FAQ, Glossary.
That's all awesome. So it's still around, right? It didn't collapse within one generation or anything, did it?
A US sponsored executive coup is not equivalent to collapsing due to its own problems.
What do you believe to be the cause of the fall of the USSR?
The leader of it kinda sold out and started simping for Pizza Hut
It was overthrown by the USA, as the USA strangled most attempts worldwide in their cradles also.
Primarily via the arms race in the USSR's case. You can read more about that here:
Thanks for your reading of Gabriel Rockhill. I’ve seen some of his interviews, and they are impressive.
No probs. I've yet to read any of his books, but every single article I've read by him is top-notch.
Some interviews from his Critical Theory Workshop
Nice, thx.
That's a yes, it collapsed within one generation. Such an outstanding method of government!
If all it took, according to you, is one department of one nation to bring it down, it was not strong.
But we both know that's not why it collapsed.
The USSR lasted for 70 years, so that's like 3 generations. It also saved the world from Nazism, eliminated illiteracy, ended famines, became a world superpower, and made it to outer space, all within that time.
Oh look, every one responding is from .ml
Shocker!Yes, the entire world is thankful for communism eliminating literacy and ending famines. Neither of those things are around anymore, thank you.
But we both know that’s not why it collapsed.
okay, then tell us why you think it collapsed? These vague insinuations and gesturing don't prove your point, they make it seem like you're unsure of the basis of your own assertions.
Edit: And for the record, the first ever experiment of a modern socialist country in history, with no earlier examples to work off of, succumbing to a series of both external and internal contradictions doesn't say anything concretely about the viability of socialism as a whole. In fact, their massively successful strides toward constructing new relations of society, and the betterment of living standards for the vast masses of its people, and the provided security of housing, employment, nutrition, community, and healthcare which was established after fully collectivizing and industrializing (industrializing in 1/10 of the time it took the west to industrialize, without the fundamental basis of primitive accumulation through global colonialism, settler-colonialism, genocide, chattel slavery, child labor, aggressive wars, and malthusian sanitation practices that under-girded the western industrial revolution; and doing so after suffering such destruction in WWI and the civil and counter-revolutionary-interventionist war no less) proves there are extremely strong cases for it being a model of success to learn from and build off of, while learning from its shortcomings and mistakes.
Is that what you whisper in the Russian and Chinese ears late at night in your mom's basement?
The USA was and remains the richest, most powerful country in history, and responsible for most of the overthrows, coups, and mass killings in the 20th century.
What does that have to do with the internal collapse of the USSR?
You do know that's not a country anymore, right? Or hasn't that news reached .ml yet?
What does that have to do with the internal collapse of the USSR?
you've still not made any actual assertions. "The internal collapse of the USSR" makes it seem like you're gesturing toward having some actual knowledge, which you're refusing to disclose, instead making smug assertions that this hidden vague knowledge that you refuse to declare means you're right. So, what does "the internal collapse of the USSR" actually mean to you? What are you imagining (the pictures and words in your brain) when you say "the internal collapse of the USSR," and what were the causes in your opinion for whatever you're imagining?
It doesn't seem like you actually know what you're talking about, because you're desperately avoiding making real substantive statements in any of these comments, instead throwing tantrums when pressed on what you actually think. Tell us your actual positions, without petulant 'McCarthy-if-he-was-a-redditor' tantrums, or otherwise stop pretending to have any.
I don't think anyone knows what it's like, was there any communist country which wasn't also both a dictatorship and poor?
Most steadily improved their material conditions and did not have dictatorships.
Pretty hard seeing the good and bad of communism when it's always alongside the two worse things that can happen to a country.
Explain, please.
P.S. Wait, actually not the two worse things... there's also war, and that applies to most of them too.
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.
So USSR was a dictatorship
No, not even the CIA thought the USSR was a dictatorship. You can't just make unsourced blanket claims based on your emotions.
the country was in ruin after WW2
Yes, they did around 4/5ths of the fighting against the Nazis in totality.
The 3 factor i mentioned are there.
If you conjure them into existence from your imagination, sure.
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.
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 i'm saying is, it couldn't help because of the war and Stalin. We don't know if it would've otherwise.
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 again is a dictatorship, and wasn't rich.
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 is a dictatorship, China went on a horrible famine with Mao. Nowadays getting richer only because of how their economy is now fully capitalist.
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.
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 have.
I would still rather not say dictatorships like USSR or PRC are good to live under.
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?
That's my point, even if communism was good, dictatorship is a plague that makes any system a nightmare.
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.
But saying Stalin or Mao are not dictatorships is just delusional.
They weren't, Mao was democratically recalled, even. Stalin was elected as well, and neither had total control.
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.
Is having a single party all it takes to not be democratic, in your eyes? Even if everything is decided democratically?
(And yes socialist market economy, that really makes a world of difference from capitalist market)
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.
Also to make things clear i wouldn't have sided with tsar or anyone else than Lenin. I do believe in communism.
Yet you speak endlessly as a left anticommunist. Is the only communism you support the fictional kind in your fantasies?
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.
These metrics rose with Communism and fell with Capitalism. It's cut and dry why they happened.
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.
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?
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.
What did all the countries that tried communism get wrong?
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.
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.
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.
But for real you think it's possible?
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.
How do we stop the people in power from taking everything for themselves. It's what's happened everytime no?
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.
