“The pure (libertarian) socialists’ ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.”
― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
boomers destroyed the earth beyond all belief, poisoned everyone with sketchy ass chemicals, destroyed the economy more than once (twice in my life), most of us will NEVER own a home because the housed your grand pappy paid 100k for is now worth 2.5 million and average yearly wage is less than 30,000… among a million other things. The greed and entitlement is baffling, mix that in with delusional red scare propaganda that a ton of people fall for and yall mfers spending time defending all this insane shit.
we effectively live in a corporate government where what the people want doesn’t matter alongside the million other ways we are lied to and exploited. Billionaires and trillionaires run the world and they keep pushing for “the next thing” like the metaverse, blockchain and going mars while most of us cant even afford to fucking eat. Suck it. I guarantee that you cant even define communism and point out how it differs from social policies even on a very basic fundamental level. Fuck dude
And Soviet communism was… better how? Just as (if not more) destructive to the environment, and their “billionaires” were called “party members” instead. What an improvement! Now they can jail/deport political dissenters without even having to pretend to hold a fair trial.
Now of course this is where communists usually go No True Scotsman, but consider for just ONE MOMENT that the concept of wealth inequality is not, in fact, unique to capitalism. Any economic system is vulnerable to greed. And that the countries with arguably the strongest social welfare, highest human development, etc. are… the Nordics. Hardly capitalist, hardly hellholes.
This is why people say communists are angsty teenagers. Capitalism is a deeply flawed system, but all of what you just pointed to is, in fact, not unique to capitalism. That’s just Americana. Pointing to the U.S. as a reason why “capitalism bad” is just as silly as pointing to N.K. as a reason why “communism bad”.
Typical American with a viewpoint so narrow you can’t see further than your nose. I’ve had lots of interesting discussions with French communists, and I agree with some of their viewpoints, but to start with you have to realize that capitalism is not the root of ALL evil, only of some specific systemic issues, which are only a small part of what’s wrong with the US.
Fuck. What did it say? I was deleting comment and did the wrong one or someone did wipe. Tons? Tons of dead people? Yes, communists here murdered literal tons of people and if you intend to deny existence of victims of any regime then we have nothing to further talk about.
Yes literal tons of fascists, Nazis, extreme nationalists, imperialists, colonialists, some of the worst criminals, and CIA agents. If you check the Victims of Communism, that’s literally what you’re going to find btw.
Well capitalism is about making a selfish choice. We have no significant capital, so maybe they cut us in or don’t be surprised when some don’t care for the system.
How dare teenagers not become Neoliberals while growing up in a late capitalist hellscape where climate change can’t be taken seriously because it isn’t a profitable problem to solve.
There’s a lot of space in the left that isn’t stalinism. You can be a communist and have a deep critique of how 20th century communism worked, a learning from it and not wanting to repeat the bad parts.
In leftist circles in the US, weird Stalin and Lenin fans are loud, but ultimately not that common.
Neither of those countries ever claimed to have a communist mode of production. Being led by a Communist Party and having a communist economic system are two different things. The USSR never claimed to have achieved communism, they achieved socialism (a transitionary phase between capitalism and communism) according to Marxist-Leninist theory.
This is a quote from Engels describing such a transitionary system:
What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.
If an advanced capitalist country in the imperial Core, today, attempted a similar transition, it would be nothing like these other examples because our material conditions are entirely different (Marx didn’t expect communism to be tried within individual countries in isolation or within undeveloped countries). Marx didn’t provide a blueprint for transitioning to communism because what that looks like is different in every country and material situation etc.
The US has a blend of public and private infrastructure. Cities like Chicago sold the rights to their parking to private companies. Red light and speeding cameras are also privatized. Some states have sold their turnpike system to non public entities. Busses are unreliable in most metro areas because bus systems don’t turn a profit.
Amtrak, America’s only passenger train system, operates nearly entirely on private tracks. Its nearly always as expensive or more for a train ticket than it would be to just fly. At that the system is unreliable with trains constantly having to wait hours for freight trains to pass because they have the right of way on private tracks.
Nearly all utilities (power, water, gas) are ran by for profit companies. Americas “social safety net” reads like a punishment most of the time. Seniors living on social security eat cat food to get by. Politicians want work requirements on food assistance. Homelessness is at epidemic levels, in a more liberal area there are some depression era hoovervilles built. Conservative areas just buy bus tickets to the liberal areas.
China is socialist under Primary Stage Socialism with development emphasized. Social safety nets and public infrastructure are not automatically steps towards socialism (in the first place because the U.S. is imperialist and finances these gains with the wealth of other nations with the aim of pacifying conflict rather than ushering in genuine positive change). This spectrum approach ignores political and developmental realities, in the first place with China being a dictatorship of the proletariat and the US being a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and with private businesses subordinated at every step to the popular mass party (and with the final goal of expelling them when socialism is fully developed (1949/1950), since China is a backward nation that did not undergo a capitalist period before developing the DOTP. The “more state or more private” dichotomy is imo an incorrect way of looking at things.
Is it, though? I certainly don’t see the Chinese political leadership needing to put in considerable labour for their income. In practice, they don’t look so different from American business and political elites, to me.
US being a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
Look I understand where you’re coming from with this, and when you’re talking about America in particular I’m relatively on board. But I suspect this was intended to refer to western capitalist democracies more broadly, and while I understand what you mean, I simply don’t agree that it’s fair to call a democracy using a serious democratic system running free and fair elections a “dictatorship” in the same paragraph as you’re calling China a dictatorship, as though the two are comparable.
Yeah, FPTP is fundamentally anti-democratic, and most democracies have some flaws in how free or fair they are, with the result being that they’re less than perfectly democratic. The US is particularly bad, but even worse is a place like Singapore, which barely pretends to be a fair democracy. But if you mean to suggest the same of countries like Australia, France, and Germany, I’m just not on board. To pretend even America is on the same level of being a dictatorship as China is ludicrous.
I say this as someone who is rather anti-capitalist in general. In theory, I think the ideals of socialism are fantastic, and from what I’ve seen socialists say about how the system could work, I don’t disagree.
But then I see socialists do things like pretend America is just as much of a dictatorship as China or (as I saw the creator of the explicitly socialist Second Thought YouTube channel “Second Thought” do on his news channel) side with Russia (or at least, against NATO and Ukraine) in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or blame America for China’s aggressive policy towards Taiwan. And as much as I’m on board with socialist economic ideals, I also fundamentally believe in the rights of individual freedoms afforded by liberal democracies.
I don’t think that these have to be in conflict, but for some reason every time I see someone espousing socialism they seem to end up supportive highly oppressive regimes like China and Russia. It makes it very hard (read: impossible) to actually take that final step into embracing the label of “socialist”.
Dictatorship, to Marxists, refers to the ruling class. After Feudalism, the class character is either proletarian, capitalist/bourgeosie, or Napoleonic. In this case, all liberal democracies are dictatorships. If it’s a state, it requires dictatorship by a class or class relationship. If the dictatorship was deemed unncessary, or the contradiction between classes fell, then no states would be necessary. As far as your point on Taiwan, almost all countries recognized by the UN observe One-China policy as required by formal relationships with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which has territorial claims to Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, even though they have their own distinct governments. To recognize formal relations with Taiwan is to also recognize China, only in that case meaning the Republic of China (ROC) rather than the PRC. As for NATO? There are plenty of videos to watch if you are curious, but NATO itself is tied to its history with the Operation Gladio, and its purpose was to be an alliance against the USSR. Now that the USSR is long gone, any use of NATO is extremely questionable, as if arming and funding fascists wasn’t bad enough.
Add comment