As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.
As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.
heres the actual material reality: western capitalists control the world, they are fucking us over. it was only ever “prosperous” to a select few countries.
socialism is historically one of the only ways to defeat it, i get the people who like it.
Socialism was never implemented in good faith. Oh, you’re talking about the Soviet Union? Try to run a planned economy on a scale of a modern society. And tell me about equality and freedom where you gotta be in the party to have access to better stuff.
Or you are talking about China? Well, they are pragmatic and apparently learned. That’s why China is not a planned economy, but state capitalism. Sadly, it’s heavily authoritarian.
Capitalism and the idea of markets is not the problem. The problem is if it becomes an end in itself. So if you ask me, economically, the model that China is doing right now is right and obviously pretty successful. It is the rest I would rather not copy.
I neither want to live in a country run by oligarchs, nor by a self-serving elite of authoritarian bureaucrats. The rotten form of capitalism is the neoliberal dystopia we see in the west right now, the rotten form of socialism is what the Soviet Union was by the end.
You want a socialist revolution? Good luck. But please think about how to prevent just shifting the wealth and power from one group of bad people to another over the course of a few decades.
This is nonsense, again.
The Soviet economy worked very well, and was one of the fastest growing economies of the 20th century. The difference between the wealthiest and the poorest was about 5 times, compared to hundreds to thousands in capitalist countries (and even more).
The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, the large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. They are pragmatic and learned, which is why they maintained socialism.
Yes, the PRC is proof that socialism works astoundingly well.
Again, you return to vibes-based nonsense. The Soviet Union was more democratic than capitalist countries, and the PRC is as well.
Haha my family emigrated from Russia in the 90s, don’t tell me about the real life in the Soviet Union.
The difference between wealthiest and poorest was surely much smaller, but the living standard overall was also much lower. My grandpa telling stories how he had to stay in line in the hope to get some sausage for the family, or about the underground black markets where people illegally were exchanging western goods that simply did not exist in the Soviet Union. The misplanned and falsely reported production, factory owners faking their numbers to appear like they satisfy quota. My grand-grandpa barely not being sent to a Gulag because we’re an ethnic minority, even though he was a WWII war hero. Having to use connections and swaps to organize having an independent apartment for your adult children and their partners. Having to engage in everyday bribing of officials to get some paperwork ready not in months but weeks, because that’s the only way to get things done there.
Is this more than vibe to you? You are not exactly quoting academic literature either.
I have heard enough stories to know that this is not a system I could see or want myself existing in and I’m happy I grew up in central Europe.
The PRC is doing its own thing. You can call it socialist market, but this term I have never heard before, the usual term is state capitalism. What we can agree on is that they are doing pretty well at the moment.
I’m not trying to be mean here, but I really don’t care about anecdotes. When I say that the Soviet economy was strong and maintained some of the highest rates of growth in the world all while having a lower disparity, it’s because I’ve done the reading and research to see that. A quick article like *Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowans, or a full book like Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski or Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti all do a far better job than anecdotes at seeing what conditions were actually like systemically.
I’m also not saying the Soviet Union was perfect. There indeed were issues with black markets, misplanning, etc, but they didn’t outweigh the dramatic benefits the system provided. It’s no wonder that the majority of people who lived through the Soviet system wish it had remained. With the reintroduction of capitalism in the 90s, an estimated 7 million people died due to a loss in safety nets and a dramatic increase in poverty around the world.
The achievements of the USSR and its failings need to be contextualized in the fact that, unlike western countries, the USSR was a developing country. With it, however, came around the developed world a mass expansion in safety nets in order to provide what the USSR was already providing for its people. With the fall of the USSR, wealth disparity around the world began to climb more rapidly than ever:
As for the PRC, “Socialist Market Economy” is the official term for its economy. The fact that you admit to never hearing that term before means you haven’t actually done much research into it. State Capitalism refers to countries where private ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries, but with strong state influence, like Bismark’s Germany, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In the PRC, it’s public property that governs the large firms and key industries.
The system overall is called Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, or SWCC. Here’s a study guide for it, in more depth. The key takeaway is that private property and markets existed in Mao’s era, in the USSR, etc, the modern PRC isn’t very different from those in terms of where the balance of power lies. Trying to plan all of the small, underdeveloped industry can often slow growth, while planning and controlling the large firms and key industries is not only more effective economically, also retains proletarian control over the economy. As the small and medium firms are developed through market forces, they can be better intrgrated into central planning and have their property gradually sublimated. It’s Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of modern China, also called Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought. So yes, China is absolutely socialist.
My very original statement was about the fact regulated markets makes sense as an instrument in an economy, and as long as they are ultimately controlled to work to the benefit for the people, they are a useful instrument. I am strongly against the idea that markets are the ultimate ordering principle for society. If by “capitalism” you mean this, then sure, I am against capitalism. But this extreme free market capitalism has a name - neoliberalism. I’m against neoliberalism, because it leads to inequality and fascism.
I don’t see where we even disagree, except for how to call certain combinations and variations of features in an economy. Honestly, I don’t believe how to call it is so important except for the fact we agree on the actual meaning behind the practical outcome.
China has always been a syncretic culture that is really good at incorporating various elements that make sense in a holistic way into their culture. They digested socialism just as they digested capitalism and just as they digested Buddhism when it was new.
In any case thanks for your links, I’m currently reading a survey about China (not focused on only the last century), so this can complement my reading.
yes it was. how do you think socialist countries went from pisspoor poorest in the planet to industrial powerhouses in just a few decades?
if you like the status quo fascism for whatever reason, why not say it in a less roundabout way? i mean why would you be punching left so fiercely in the face of it?
You want to see enemies, so you picture me like one.
Tell me one country that absolutely without doubt was able to improve the living standard and bring masses of people out of poverty, which is not China.
I am not a fanboy of China, but I respect that whatever they are doing in the last 30-40 years, because it works. Even through a biased Western lens it’s hard to deny that they are extremely successful. But China does not count. They drifted away from pure socialism right after Mao was done. The legacy of Mao is not that great. Both Stalin and Mao mainly produced repressions and famines.
And where is the rest of the “socialist block” which is supposedly successful right now, and not an authoritarian corrupt backwater? I know what you’ll say. The evil West has torpedoed everything everywhere. That’s too convenient.
I read the Capital, did you?
Don’t you dare telling me I hate the left.
I just dislike people who think they have found the ultimate answer and love their answer more than other people.
Economical and organizational structure is a tool to manage societies, not a fucking religion.
Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, etc. Socialism works.
China 100% counts as socialist. The Gang of Four diverged from Marxism-Leninism into ultraleft dogmatism. Ultraleftism is not “pure socialism,” there is no such thing as “pure” socialism, capitalism, etc. The PRC under Mao had markets, private property, etc, as did the USSR. As a consequence, the modern CPC is course-corrected to a standard Marxist-Leninist outlook. Both Mao and Stalin are seen as 70% good by the modern CPC.
The claims of “authoritarianism” are the repression of capitalists.
Yes, I’ve read Capital, volume 1. I’m on volume 2 right now. More importantly, I’ve read a ton of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and far more Marxist authors, all who speak about Dialectical Materialism and socialism, how to bring about communism, and more, all of which you won’t find in Capital. I’m skeptical that you’ve even read Volume 1, to be honest, your understanding of Marxism is incredibly poor. Using “I’ve read Capital” as an “I win the argument” tool is incredibly poor rhetoric, if you have a good argument, make it, don’t appeal to your own authority.
Yes, political theory isn’t a religion, you seem to think it is though.
please engage with reality, my man. i don’t want to “see” anything. the us have been killing and invading for decades all around the globe. my country was couped by it (and that doesnt narrow it down).
and yes china’s living standard improved in an unprecedented way since the revolution. they are not the only ones, btw, socialism does that.
the only reason i can think of for this detachment from facts is you don’t really care about the fascist status quo.
i mean its not you in the receiving end of any physical, psychological or economic violence.
Did I say anywhere that the US is great ?
I’m central European and always hated their mentality and imperialism. You seem to equate US with any form of economy with some form of capitalism, i.e. markets and prices as a mechanism.
Europe is also far from innocent from further back, but AFAIK Europe did not coup or invade anyone recently and we have our own flavor of political system, social democracy or call it however you like, which worked pretty well until everything began to shift into US-style neoliberalism/fascism in the last 20 years or so.
I’m as happy to see the US destroy themselves and lose influence right now as you probably are, but you are right, I have been living in a privileged environment in any case.