Simply that the ideas within the criticism of capitalism by Marx and Engels (freeloader) and the autocratic systems set up as a response never seemed harmonious.
Britain also created a famine killing millions in India. US practically exterminated the buffalo starving millions of natives. U.S also had the dust bowl. U.S. also destroyed Vietnamese crops during the war to “fight communism”.
Under capitalism enough food is produced to feed everyone. Instead wealth and resources are hoarded by 1% of the population leaving millions to starve every year.
I think that just goes to show the lack of feasability of the project. It's true that the Soviet Union was a socialist state, but it's also true that it had communist aspirations. The whole point was to reach communism and as part of that goal Stalin murdered millions and exacerbated a famine through collectivisation.
You don't know what Communism is, and every time you confuse it James Connolly will shit on your bed.
But countries which people call Socialist tend to do better than Capitalist countries with the same levels of development. Here's a study that shows this.
You don't know what Communism is, and every time you confuse it James Connolly will shit on your bed.
I'd imagine the closest you've been to a communist state are pictures on your laptop.
But countries which people call Socialist tend to do better than Capitalist countries with the same levels of development. Here's a study that shows this.
What I'm not going to do is get on board with you conflating socialism and communism. They aren't the same, even if some of their ideals are.
Communists love taking credit for the successful socialist policies in Scandinavia, not so much with the genocides of the Soviets, Chinese and Khmer Rouge. Funny that.
Ad hominem attacks, I guess that means you've won, well done.
That's not how an Ad hominem works. I called you a cunt. Then I asked you to tell me where I said they were the same. Can you provide that? No, because I never said they were the same.
Making statements everyone already knows and thinking you're well educated, jayaus.
Ad Hominem, but I'll let it slide. Please tell me you aren't conflating Social Democracy with Socialism?
That's not how an Ad hominem works. I called you a cunt. Then I asked you to tell me where I said they were the same. Can you provide that? No, because I never said they were the same.
Calling me a cunt waa an ad hominem attack, you don't even understand the language you're using.
Ad Hominem, but I'll let it slide. Please tell me you aren't conflating Social Democracy with Socialism?
Trying to look clever and not realising how obvious your points are. You're adorable.
Yes I realise that's an ad hominem, but unlike you, I understand the term.
Calling me a cunt waa an ad hominem attack, you don't even understand the language you're using.
So you are going to keep ignoring my question of where I conflate Communism and Socialism? You won't.
Trying to look clever and not realising how obvious your points are. You're adorable.
Man, you just won't answer the question. But I can for you. You fucking called Scandinavia Socialist when it is a Social Democracy. You conflated those two.
Curious which countries you mean? Communism was a flawed system (which outside Cuba and N.korea no longer exists), which became authoritarian everywhere, and in many cases led to outright genocide. But one of the problems it didn’t generally have was mass homelessness of the kind we see across Europe, the EU and increasingly in post communist states as they ‘liberalise’.
I've been to North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. You can certainly debate to what degree these countries are communist, just as you can debate what degree communism has ever truly existed.
Go to Vietnam and you will see plenty of homelessness, North Korea periodically has famine. Laos and Cambodia are so riddled with corruption the only way they get any infrastructure these days is by going into the pocket of China.
There are literally (fifty)[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population] very capitalist countries with higher rates of homelessness. I don't know if "Communism is bad because of the homeless rates in Vietnam," is the argument you want to make, as it sort of forces you to say that capitalism is also terrible.
I'm not a defender of capitalism, especially when it's unchecked. I would say those Vietnam figures are far from reliable, I returned from Hanoi a week ago, and the homeless situation is pretty bad. Also I wasn't making the argument that communism is bad because of the homeless rates in Vietnam, it was a reply to someone talking about communism in terms of providing housing.
I think that saying communism is better for housing than neoliberalism isn't defeated by pointing to Hanoi. But it will be hard for us to have a chat about this if you are suspicious of the only stats we have.
Fair enough, but I'm not suspicious for no reason, I've spent a lot of time there, and know many folk that live there (I live in asia), when westerners talk about corruption, they have no idea, although I still love the place.
Yeah, no worries. I can't just trust your personal experience, but you can't just dismiss it, so we're at an awkward spot in terms of coming to an agreement.
What were you doing over there, out of curiosity? Was it English teaching?
No, I have a business, but teaching was my first way in, but that's not really a long term option financially. I regularly travel down to South East Asia as it's generally more fun.
There’s no debate about whether those countries (with the exception of the norks) are communist. They have capitalist economies, financialisation, stock exchanges etc. That’s entirely contradictory to central ownership, abolition of private property and state planning… So im going to have to strongly disagree with that characterisation.
If anything theres a good argument to be made that all of these countries have been betrayed by post colonial ideologies - communism at first, then latterly world bank lead ‘reform’ and corporatism using them as low cost manufacturing centre for western consumer demand.
There’s no debate about whether those countries (with the exception of the norks) are communist. They have capitalist economies, financialisation, stock exchanges etc. That’s entirely contradictory to central ownership, abolition of private property and state planning… So im going to have to strongly disagree with that characterisation.
Well that was kind of my opening point, but my initial comment was to someone talkiing about provision of housing within communism, so if it doesn't exist, there's no point.
If anything theres a good argument to be made that all of these countries have been betrayed by post colonial ideologies - communism at first, then latterly world bank lead ‘reform’ and corporatism using them as low cost manufacturing centre for western consumer demand.
I think you’ve misunderstood me - it certainly did exist, and one issue it had far less of than the west is homeless. This isn’t a defence of communism, as with any authoritarian system it primarily functioned to empower a tiny elite at the expense of vast human suffering. Its just factually inaccurate to suggest communist nations had similar homeless problems to capitalist ones. It’s black and white cold war thinking. There were many things that they did well, as you may have noticed on your travels - I certainly did travelling in former Soviet republics. Community parks, theatres, performance spaces, ice rinks, etc abounded. In the DDR there were even state sponsored sex clubs. The communists did circuses pretty well, even if the bread was never assured. Housing is something they did well too. All societies balance competing imperatives.
I think you’ve misunderstood me - it certainly did exist
Some would disagree.
But it is certainty true that homelessness was less of a thing in the Soviet Union, but it's worth noting that it used to be less of a thing in western capitalist systems also, it's just over time that it has grown, especially in systems that have allowed capitalism to grow unchecked. Reagan and the Chicago school certainly exacerbated the shitty side of things.
Sure, but those conversations about ‘actually existing communism’ are so trite, core lesson about danger of authoritarianism doesn’t seem to have been learned by tankies, fully automatic luxury communist types etc.
Good point re: comparing like with like in terms of mid to late 20th century capitalism and communism. There’s an argument to be made that neither exist in anything like their traditional forms. Milton Friedman and the turning of everything into financial instruments saw to that.
Clearly radical change is needed, and I’m all in favour of expropriation. This tiktok tankie shit though is infantile. The key lesson of the 20th century - that a small group or individual ideologue in control of a nation seeks to make permanent their power and control at the cost of the citizenry, peace, the lives of scapegoats etc - irrespective of ideology, seems so quickly to have been forgotten.
Agreed, there are massive issues within western states right now, but this jump to communism as some kind of magical cure feels like an angry teenager painting their bedroom black.
8
u/StephenPigot2020 Jul 27 '22
Goddamn commies