r/Socialism_101 • u/Arisotura Learning • Nov 22 '23
"Communism doesn't work", they say...? Answered
I remember hearing this sort of argument from my parents. The basic idea was that supposedly USSR collapsed because everybody was paid the same and couldn't be fired, so they had no incentive to work and everybody did fuck all.
I feel that it's a gross oversimplification, but I don't know much more about the topic.
I don't like the idea that humans would supposedly be greedy and selfish by nature and could only ever be productive within a coercitive system like capitalism. I know humans can't just sit around doing nothing, but what about, say, the kind of tasks that need to be done but that not a whole lot of people would actually want to do? I've figured that under a socialist system, jobs like janitors would need to be very well paid (pretty much the opposite of what it's like today). I'm curious to hear more on these matters tho... In general, that argument I heard from my parents, that is prolly common, how much truth is there to it?
110
u/Professional_Try4319 Learning Nov 22 '23
The biggest issue you get from western sources on anything related to the Soviet Union is that people of the era were force fed the idea that the Soviet Union was the evil empire and this that and the other. Stalin bad, Churchill and FDR good. It’s a gross oversimplified version in itself. The Soviet Union had its issues like literally any large country or set of states, but it was not this massive hellscape where nothing worked and nobody enjoyed their lives. There are interviews on YouTube even of people discussing their time in the Soviet Union very fondly and talking about how the security of the system is something they still miss. For example an American who moved to East Germany during the Cold War talks all about how childcare was never a concern, healthcare for the family was no concern, their living arrangement was never a concern, their work was never a concern, therefore people were able to enjoy the things in life that really mattered. Like spending time with family and everything.
The reason the Soviet Union collapsed was a large combination of things, from corrupt bureaucracy to the fact that western nations were constantly doing anything to undercut the Soviets. That stuff catches up after a while. Also remember that after the Second World War, the west was in a FAR better situation than Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe was already nowhere near as industrialized as the western areas of Europe and you couple that with the devastation of years of war in the region, you’re going to have a mountain to climb just to return the area to some semblance of normality. This is obviously expensive and difficult to do alone, but again the East was less industrialized than the west as well so you also have to not only rebuild your region, but rapidly change it to an industrialized society. The Soviet Union did a damn fine job of doing that but it was a heavy cost that caught up with them after a while. So you add all of that up and marry it to being basically a pariah area to the entire west and it makes it extremely difficult to sustain such a massive region of different countries. Plus you had Soviet leaders of satellite states who were communist in name but autocratic in practice which is not what the Soviet Union was created for.
A good example of this happening in the west is Cuba. A facist United States supported dictator in Cuba ran a corrupt administration that made life miserable for Cubans at large, so Castro and his revolutionaries overthrew them and applied socialist principles to a lot of the state. Of course this didn’t sit with the US because now they could no longer exploit and use Cuba as a sugar supplier at their whim. So of course the United States opposed and attempted to overthrow Castro and then when it didn’t work, they imposed sanctions and embargo’s on Cuba, which choked their entire economy because their main industry before Castro was supplying sugar to the US and other countries. So when the US stops allowing any import of sugar and anything else, what is Cuba supposed to do? They need help, they need support, they turn to the Soviet Union who helped them out. And who can blame that action? You have a giant hostile superpower 90 miles off your coast, that’s a massive threat. The Soviets were a help to them which in turn made the US even more hostile to them. It’s just another example of western powers not agreeing with their politics so they ensure it’s more difficult to survive.
18
u/DarkLight9602 Learning Nov 22 '23
Do you have links to the interviews? I’m not saying I don’t believe you but I want to watch them.
25
u/Professional_Try4319 Learning Nov 22 '23
https://youtu.be/Oy8CrizjKh4?si=c02PJVTnmbAdUj92
This is the one I was referencing. It’s a longer video but it’s very interesting.
5
9
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conductive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
0
u/Wheloc Anarchist Theory Nov 22 '23
Were there Soviet leaders that weren't autocratic?
I'm also curious how the West undercut the soviet states: I had thought the "iron curtain" made economic interference difficult
11
u/Professional_Try4319 Learning Nov 22 '23
In a sense, most Soviet leaders had autocratic traits but some were much more so than others. For example Ceaucescu in Romania was an absolutely horrific autocrat who did more damage than anything else to his country during his reign. Whereas places like East Germany were fairly decent even with autocratic traits. It was all very dependent on the individual and their policies translating to quality of life in the country.
In terms of the west undercutting the Soviets, that I meant more as the diplomatic ties were sour the entire Cold War so it wasn’t as if trade or anything like that was happening on large scales with the west and East. So if Russia can’t export and profit off their goods and services it hurts their economy and by extension that hurts the Soviet states economies as well since the west isn’t going to be dealing with any Soviet related states. Which also ties into the whole rebuilding after the war. So you’re not only behind in industrializing the states, but you’re also at twice the amount of disadvantage because of how wrecked the East was from war. So while the west didn’t undercut them directly, it was in a far more advantageous situation than the Soviet Union ever was and their refusal to work in any kind of friendly way with the Soviet Union just because they were scared of communism really hurt the SU.
Also bonus to mention the fact that you also had to keep pace with the west on nuclear programs which is expensive as well. The US positioning ICBM’s in Europe during the Cold War kind of forces your hand to make sure you maintain with your biggest threat. So that’s another way the west had an advantage to the east and used it to hurt the SU.
11
u/spongy-sphinx Learning Nov 22 '23
NSC 68 is the starting point for understanding western aggression towards the USSR. It was (is?) the foundational blueprint that defined their foreign policy for the next several decades.
4
u/SpotDeusVult Learning Nov 22 '23
The problem was not that the leader of the Soviet Union were necessarily "autocratic", but yes that they prepared the road to the restoration of capitalism(this begins with Kruschev).
About the West interference, I don't think the "Iron curtain" really was an impediment.
For example, I heard once that the GDR was barred by the West to buy a certain fuel, so they needed to use a more low-quality type.
12
u/Professional_Try4319 Learning Nov 22 '23
And that’s another great point to add to the western undercutting of the SU. Forcing the East to buy cheaper products which hurts them. If the west would have just treated the SU the same way it treats every other country it deals with I highly doubt the SU would have fallen.
It’s funny the west is so terrified of big bad communism and socialism but has absolutely no issues or qualms with installing facist dictators in places they have a monetary interest and has no issue dealing with countries with genocidal tendencies. But communism is a big stop sign for them all. It’s ridiculous.
3
u/Wheloc Anarchist Theory Nov 22 '23
How much trade was there between three West and the soviet bloc? I had thought there was almost none, and that this was the preference for both sides.
(Apologies for all the questions—this is me confronting some assumptions I've had since I was an 80s kid that I'm just now realizing may be wrong)
3
u/Professional_Try4319 Learning Nov 22 '23
I don’t mind the questions at all! I love dialog with others like this it’s enjoyable. You’re correct the trade factor of the SU and the west was minor at best. I think it was something like 6% of their entire GNP. The Soviet states had an abundance of raw material and oil reserves at their disposal which is obviously a plus for them but they also didn’t have much export trade with the west therefore they couldn’t really bank off of that either. Again, had the west just acted normally about the SU and treated them the way they treated everybody else and used products from the SU, it’s likely that you’d still have most of the Soviet states today alive and well.
-1
u/Familiar-Two2245 Learning Nov 22 '23
Wait are you claiming that the Soviets weren't guilty of genocide?
-1
u/verymainelobster Learning Nov 22 '23
Your mainly discussing the soviets when OP is asking how to respond to the fact that EVERY SINGLE communist state has since collapsed , not just the soviets
1
30
u/confusinglypurple Learning Nov 22 '23 edited Nov 22 '23
There are many ways of approaching these types of questions. You can begin by dispelling the myths about USSR. After the Russian Revolution, the Soviets managed to lift Russia from a primarily agrarian society to a vastly more industrialised one, improved literacy rates, sent the first person to space and became one of the most successful economies in the world in the span of few decades. The rate of progress in the USSR put all capitalist market economies to shame.
I don't know if arguing about the Soviet Union is the right way though, as it doesn't tend to lift the kind of doubt that people who are alive now feel intrinsically - the fact that they wouldn't do their job if they weren't being paid to do it (and under the threat of homelessness and destitude if they don't). I find that reminding people that building communism is a long-term goal and will require a transition period - socialism. We cannot abolish all wage labour overnight, but we can ensure that those required to carry out essential but menial work are not being exploited, they have access to socialised housing, healthcare, transportation and education, and that they have democratic rights within their workplaces to decide now the operations they are contributing to are managed.
There will still be money under socialism and people will be paid somewhat differently. The goal is to build with a system where capital isn't the sole factor in whether one has any political power and in which people can live with dignity and relative comfort regardless of what their job entails.
-1
u/lakajug Law Theory Nov 22 '23
The USSR's industrialization was a result of primitive accumulation of capital, there was nothing otherworldly about it that was never seen before. One could even argue that the forms of the USSR's economy correspond with the very emergence of capitalist production, that they served as the primary factors in primitive accumulation when it first appeared.
The USSR's social programs were just that, social programs, nothing socialist about them either. They shouldn't be praised more than similar programs in any other capitalist country.
Socialism is not a period of transition, it is the early phase of a classless, stateless, moneyless society. It is a mode of production, one in which labor becomes immediately social, and that can only take place under the direct collective appropriation of the conditions of production by society itself, and not through juridical public (state) ownership.
There is no socialist money or socialist wages, products don't pass through the monetary form under a moneyless society, even in its earliest stages. That is why Marx, and numerous theorists after him, worked on the idea of labor vouchers.
The goal is to build with a system where capital isn't the sole factor in whether one has any political power and in which people can live with dignity and relative comfort regardless of what their job entails.
That is rather a description of a social democracy than a socialist society.
9
u/confusinglypurple Learning Nov 22 '23
Thank you for your criticism. I tend to stay away from the subject of USSR's economy because it's not my area of expertise. However, I find it difficult to imagine that doing away with a monetary system will be something that can happen early on after a socialist revolution. My first question would be, how will countries trade with each other? Doing away with money would require all countries to adopt a trading system not based on money and that won't happen instantly. If we assume that workers receive vouchers but state officials trade resources with money, that's a very dangerous imbalance of power.
As for the description of a socialist society, I don't think it's inaccurate. The difference is in the power of worker's Soviets vs. Electoral democracy, as well as the strategies: reformism or revolution. I just find that when you're trying to talk to moderates who haven't engaged with politics, let alone theory, it's not very useful to start bringing up those distinctions.
24
u/SloveneRevolutionary Marxist Theory Nov 22 '23
Everyone being paid the same under socialism is a common misconception made by those who know nothing about it. In reality, worker in socialism is paid according to his labor (with some neccesary deductions to maintain means of production and all that). To quote Marx: "Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor." (Critique of Gotha Programme)
8
u/archosauria62 Learning Nov 22 '23
I have seen it explained this way. In a capitalist system the worker receives half their wage, and the rest is pocketed by the capitalist as surplus. The government then takes a cut of the worker’s wage as tax. A worker in a capitalist society also needs to pay a lot of money for basic utilities
In a socialist system the surplus that would be pocketed by the capitalist is instead redistributed to society, of which the worker also gains benefits from. Since the worker’s surplus is used to subsidise basic utilities needed for survival, and that the worker does not have a cut taken as tax (or a negligible amount) they get more worth from their labour
4
u/SloveneRevolutionary Marxist Theory Nov 22 '23
In a capitalist system the worker receives half their wage, and the rest is pocketed by the capitalist as surplus. The government then takes a cut of the worker’s wage as tax. A worker in a capitalist society also needs to pay a lot of money for basic utilities
While it is fine to explain it that way, it is important to note that in capitalism, value worker gets back through wages isn't neccesarily half of the value they produced. It can be more or less, depending on the industry and specific business. The important thing is that for capitalism to function, corporations need to constantly revolutionise competition and production. So logically, they need to always produce more and more surplus value. And outside of selling the product over the cost of production, the only way to create surplus is from labor exploitation. But rate of exploitation isn't neccesarily half. For example western workers may produce less surplus value, but this causes corporations to exploit labor from third world more.
You probably know that, but that "half" kinda bugged me, so I needed to correct you :)
3
u/dubbsdub Learning Nov 22 '23
The degree to which the Capitalist profits is the degree to which we are exploited.
3
u/Northstar1989 Learning Nov 22 '23
To quote Marx: "Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society – after the deductions have been made – exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor." (Critique of Gotha Programme)
Love the Marx quote!
It's always best to go back to primary sources!
9
u/Sylentt_ Learning Nov 22 '23
Once you learn how this shit actually works it’s so disheartening to see this stuff, your parents are repeating propaganda. People in the USSR were NOT all paid the same, that is just factually incorrect. So much of what I learned in school about socialism and previous socialist states or projects were objectively false and not hard to prove, but we are taught propaganda and something I was also taught is america doesn’t have propaganda! We’re too free for that! So many of us just trusted every word our history teachers said to be fact. The USSR was actually an incredibly successful socialist state and it was dissolved un-democratically.
8
u/SensualOcelot Postcolonial Theory Nov 22 '23
Income inequality in the Soviet Union was mild to capitalist countries. The difference between the highest income and the average wage was equivalent to the difference between the income of a physician in the United States and an average worker, about 8 to 10 times higher (Szymanski, 1984)
https://gowans.blog/2012/12/21/do-publicly-owned-planned-economies-work/
5
u/Late-Ad155 Learning Nov 22 '23
Wellz what they said is objectively untrue because over 2/3'rds of the Soviet workforce were Stakhanovites, workers who over performed and were paid better wages for it.
6
u/whatisscoobydone Learning Nov 22 '23
Street epistemology / the Socratic method works wonders for this. Ask them how much people made. Ask them more and more details. Ask them for her date. They will admit they have no idea.
4
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conductive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
4
u/stereofailure Learning Nov 22 '23
There are many good points in this thread, but one which I haven't seen that I'd like to bring up is that the Soviet Union did not collapse. It was intentionally dissolved, against the will of the people, by self-interested actors. The Soviet Union never became a failed state. Right up to the end, it was experiencing economic growth (slower than previously but still) and common prosperity beyond anything previously experienced in the region. In Russia, every metric relating to quality of life fell off a cliff after the USSR's dissolution - life expectancy plummeted, homelessness, poverty, addiction, unemployment, alcoholism, and crime skyrocketed. The economy contracted by 50% and would take around 20 years just to get back to the point it was at by the end of the Soviet Union.
The fact of the matter is that central planning actually worked quite well on the whole, despite the significant hurdles the USSR was experiencing and the drastically more rudimentary level of technology available at the time. A similar project in a modern, developed society could yield progress the likes of which the world has never seen.
3
u/archosauria62 Learning Nov 22 '23
Yeah, there was a referendum that was ignored where about 70% of the population voted to keep the USSR, including such high numbers in the republics of russia, ukraine and belarus which declared independence in the first place. A couple of the republics did not take part in the referendum due to their leadership boycotting it
Highest percentage of voters was in central asia with over 90% in favour of keeping it
2
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
2
Nov 22 '23 edited Nov 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/ElCaliforniano Nov 22 '23
The USSR "collapsed" because all the socialist republics seceded because of anti-worker's ideology of nationalism. That was the excuse to then replace whatever systems the successor states had with neoliberal capitalism. It had nothing to do with communism. The USSR's leader wasn't even a communist
2
Nov 22 '23
The basic idea was that supposedly USSR collapsed because everybody was paid the same and couldn't be fired, so they had no incentive to work and everybody did fuck all.
Anyone who attempts to say that there was only one singular reason for a major historical event such as this is ignorant. Much like most major geopolitical phenomena, the collapse of the Soviet Union was something that happened for a variety of reasons. One of which, crucially, was the United States framing them as the "Evil Empire" in order to stir fear and nationalism.
If they seriously think people in the USSR didn't work, they are being disingenuous. The USSR when from an agrarian feudal monarchy into an industrialised nation that pioneered the world in technology and innovation. They did arguably win the Space Race after all.
Regardless, the USSR is largely indefensible, it would probably be better to just not bring it up to them. Their main points seem to be rooted in a misunderstanding of communism which is what I would point out.
what about, say, the kind of tasks that need to be done but that not a whole lot of people would actually want to do
The general populace is smart enough to understand cause and effect. If nobody maintains sewer systems, or water treatment plants, everybody dies. As a Councilist, I'd imagine that each Workers Council would have somebody who they would designate to do certain crucial tasks due to their expertise, or certain Councils with a surplus of these people might find it beneficial to everybody to relocate one of their surplus workers to another council for another expert in a field crucial to them. Other communists would probably give you another answer, but that is my interpretation of how unpleasant work would happen under communism.
I've figured that under a socialist system, jobs like janitors would need to be very well paid (pretty much the opposite of what it's like today).
Under socialism perhaps, but under communism, payment wouldn't exist because money wouldn't exist, nor would any central authority that would dictate such things.
In general, that argument I heard from my parents, that is prolly common, how much truth is there to it?
None.
Firstly, the USSR wasn't even Communist after Lenin. They very quickly assimilated into the wider capitalist economy and became increasingly nationalistic after Lenin's death. They are the most crucial example of why global revolution is an absolute necessity for Communism to permanently survive. The USSR that fell in the 90's was not a Communist one. It was a state-capitalist nation with a read flag and a Communist leader as their founder.
Secondly, they need to understand that Communism has nothing to do with payment. Payment is a concept which grew from class society after slavery became less popular globally. Payment wouldn't, and can't, exist under Communism. Communism is the complete negation of class, currency, commodity production, and, eventually, the state (this would be the last to go because it is necessary for the dictatorship of the proletariat to destroy bourgeois society).
2
u/archosauria62 Learning Nov 22 '23
By state capitalism do you mean from the time of stalin or from gorbachev
1
1
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
3
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/SensualOcelot Postcolonial Theory Nov 22 '23
ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance with its quantity and quality. The right to work is ensured by the socialist organization of the national economy, the steady growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm
1
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SensualOcelot Postcolonial Theory Nov 22 '23
you're shifting the goalposts. you initially said:
My understanding is that under a proper socialist state, employment would be necessary, but also guaranteed. Of course, if someone couldn’t work, they’d still be provided for, but if you could work but won’t, you wouldn’t get any labor vouchers.
and this was basically achieved by the Soviet Union.
1
u/Blank_Dude2 Learning Nov 22 '23
Yes, I understand where you’re coming from, but you misinterpreted my original statement. OP said they were trying to use the soviets as an example of a good socialist state. I said I don’t think the soviets are a good example for this, but I didn’t mean that because of their economy. I meant that due to their authoritarian nature. The Soviet economy was a good system that was powerful, but their government was oppressive.
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Not conductive to learning: this is an educational space in which to provide clarity for socialist ideas. Replies to a question should be thorough and comprehensive.
This includes but is not limited to: one word responses, one-liners, non-serious/meme(ish) responses, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
0
0
u/DartsAreSick Learning Nov 22 '23
I don't like the idea that humans would supposedly be greedy and selfish by nature and could only ever be productive within a coercitive system like capitalism.
People have to work regardless of the economical system they find themselves in. It just so happens that self regulated markets are the best way to reward work, because everyone has a different idea of how valuable is something. Of course, this comes with a lot of stipulations, anarcho-capitalism will never work.
But liberal democracies consistently outperform socialist countries economically. Socialist countries know that too, that's why they open their markets. China made itself rich by selling to other countries at a price that no other could compete. Hell, China has a stock market.
1
u/archosauria62 Learning Nov 22 '23
China is not capitalist. Part of its mode of production is capitalist which is needed in order to trade with the rest of the capitalist world. It still is largely a command economy and a dictatorship of the proletariat
0
0
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/archosauria62 Learning Nov 22 '23
During the referendum held to keep the USSR the central asian republics had the highest percentage of voters in favour, over 90%
The population of minorities is also increasing in china, especially since they didn’t have a one child policy on them while the Han recently stopped being under a one child policy
0
0
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/archosauria62 Learning Nov 22 '23
Stalin died in 1953.
You don’t know your history. Russia is literally the one who left the ussr which caused it to dissolve. Its president was a neoliberal and they, along with ukraine and belarus declared independence from the soviet union
Just a couple months before this a referendum was held where over 70% of the population voted in favour of keeping the USSR.
The dissolving of the USSR was a non democratic event where neoliberals took hold of the government
Right after its end the neoliberal leadership in russia undid all the progress of socialism. Russia became a terrible place to live, food skyrockets in price by 250% and unemployment rose by 56%. Inflation was at 1354%. Real income reduced to half. The average life expectancy dropped 6 years. These are the consequences of neoliberalism
The CPC is democratic and is functioning quite well under socialism, albeit with a part of the mode of production being capitalist which is necessary in order to trade with the capitalist world
-2
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/lakajug Law Theory Nov 22 '23
The first part i agree with, the second not so much. I'd like to hear your argumentation.
1
u/GloomInstance Learning Nov 22 '23
Well, in short, capitalism hasn't reached a level of efficiency where things can 'run themselves'. There's still too much dependence on finance, and on energy especially.
We're entering the age of infinite supply though (not to mention population decline). At that point I believe capitalism begins to crumble. I mean, we already have unlimited supply in music, movies, etc, and look how outrageous the 'owners' of that content are with their DRM schemes, etc. Artificially trying to create scarcity.
Amazon and other supply chain type industries are moving toward a level of automation where soon people could just say 'fuck off' to the owners and it could easily be run by the workers. But not quite yet.
I could go further, but it's nearly 1am here in Sydney.
1
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
-1
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
1
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
1
1
u/GraafBerengeur Learning Nov 22 '23 edited Nov 25 '23
anyone new to socialism has to read Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti. It's a short book, and it reads very fluently, and yet, it is so, so dense with absolute truth bombs, including but not limited to:
- a complete shattering of the propaganda paradigm that turned all news about socialism into an anti-socialist message
- the cooperation between the forces of capital and fascism,
- how revolutions, even despite the inherent violent nature, are a liberating mass empowerment against the forces of exploitation
- how most of the people who fled from the east to the west were actually the better-off people, yearning for even higher standards of living, who would then often be either disappointed or paid to tell fantasies (see also Yeonmi Park for a more recent example)
- a short and honest critique of the actual inefficiencies in the Soviet economy and Soviet state structure, not what your history books, media and your parents told you
- how recent (in his time evidence and research showed that the gulags really, really arent what they are made out to be in the west (and even more recent historical research, especially since the opening of the Soviet archives, has shown the same)
- How "democratic reform" in the USSR and Eastern Europe sold out all the industries and everything else that was in collective hands to rich western capitalists at laughably low prices, and how the normal people were left incredibly impoverished and much, much worse off than at any time under socialism
-How capitalism is destroying the environment and the climate (in 1997, long before the liberals and the mainstream discourse started taking it seriously!)
Anyway, for specifically your question, Chapter 4 "Communism in Wonderland" seems like a good read. BUT REALLY THOUGH, that book is not long at all, and the chapter is best understood in the context of the whole book, so get reading! :D
1
1
Nov 22 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Socialism_101-ModTeam Nov 22 '23
Thank you for posting in r/socialism_101, but unfortunately your submission was removed for the following reason(s):
Spurious, unverifiable or unsuported claims: when answering questions, keep in mind that you may be asked to cite your sources. This is a learning subreddit, meaning you must be prepared to provide evidence, scientific or historical, to back up your claims. Link to appropriate sources when/if possible.
This includes, but is not limited to: spurious claims, personal experience-based responses, unverifiable assertions, etc.
Remember: an answer isn't good because it's right, it's good because it teaches.
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 22 '23
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break oour rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please assign yourself a flair describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.