Educated people in general have to say on politics the same things that I said earlier, but they are very nostalgic over less criminalized popular culture, better technical education and rules being followed. So am I to some extent actually.
In Moscow? You’re not being fair. Educated people in the soviet union from Moscow lived extremely well and have very positive views. Engineers, scientists, etc will all say positive things. You know as well as I do that hundreds of video interviews will confirm this. Be fairer, claiming that everyone that supports the ussr among the over 60s is just uneducated is definitely untrue. This particular video series is in Moscow and this lady is exactly what I am talking about.
You can’t live in Moscow and say this is untrue. You’re being unfair.
No recollection at all, I’m 1996, but since transition from USSR to modern Russia didn’t happen in an instance, in various institutions and organizations you can still see in some ways how it was. More in my childhood than now, but still.
Brought up in shock therapy then.
if you weren’t in denial.
I’m not in denial. I’m asking you to be fairer. The data does not support your position. You know as well as I do that 75% of the country consider the soviet era to be when the country was at its greatest (and that this is easily verifiable from many sources), and you know damn well that 75% of the country aren’t all uneducated people. You are not being fair.
Yeah, all these sources pushing communism aren’t telling them how the Bolsheviks killed everybody that knew how to do anything: farmers, lawyers, doctors because they were deemed part of the problem, probably because they were the only ones saying “this is a bad idea.”
Then the soviets were back in the dark ages, and only got up to speed because of Germany fucking with them in WW2, and not accounting for the winter. So they were saved by the winter, and Stalin, under threat, threw everyone into the machine.
Millions of the workers were being killed - overworked to death - to get the Soviet war machine up to snuff in factories producing ammo, weapons, planes, whatever. No food, no water, just munitions to fight Germany, then to build bomb, then space flight, the. Collapse.
But, to be fair, all that stuff crippled the US too. In 1970, when everything started going tits up, that’s when it caught up with us, and we’re still paying the bill with ious to the Chinese. When those loans come to call, there will probably be another revolution, or at least war because some asshole is going to say “Look what China is doing to us.”
As someone from postsoviet state, I could not agree more. Those pushing soviet union as example of comunist project are really not doing any good for the comunist projext.
If I spent the time to dump the human boss off my back, I would not turn around and give that power to a computer. Worker controlled labor puts the power in workers’ hands.
Computers can help with communication of needs, but power should stay with workers.
But the power is not with the workers, it’s with a representative body. And in a perfect union, the body would be able to consider and weigh workers needs with production costs. So why not let a computer do it?
As AI gets more involved in decision making, the politics of AI will become a big point I think. Reponsibility, accountability, and maybe something resembing rights, or maybe access capacities. It may be a tool, but it is gaining something like an agency. So the polics of AI might be communist one.
It’s true that this should not be about communism, but about soviet state, which was an authoritharian state dominated by russian nationalism, but under banner of communism. Their kind of messed up the banner of communism for everybody. If used, it should be discussed with care.
common ownership and control of the means of production in a classless moneyless stateless society governed via collective mutual determination or similar horizontal system of power.
oh, i see, makes sense then why it was never tried. how are we going to have a society without a state to govern it? (i mean not to concern troll here, if a solution can be created for this that would be genuinely interesting, but for example that council the soviets created a century ago was clearly a state)
I love how you just keep flaunting your ignorance here. Communists aren’t imbeciles who think that you can simply snap your fingers and abolish the state, they recognize the need for a transitional socialist period from the current system to a communist one.
and how do you wish to avoid that the leaders of said transitional socialist period just cling to power?
as someone who has to live in the aftermath of one of those “transitional socialist periods” that predictably went nowhere and just broke the country’s spirit completely, i’m really damn curious. we are not talking about hypotheticals here.
I grew up in USSR and I certainly preferred it to what followed after the collapse. Claiming that it went nowhere is just brain dead. The fact is that USSR had to compete with the US empire after the war, and US being across the ocean was completely unscathed while USSR had to rebuild under duress. Of course, if you just ignore all that then you can make intellectually dishonest statements of the sort you do.
nice copium, but over here in hungary, one of the countries your glorious ussr managed to colonize that’s not really the picture we got. the ten years following the collapse of the soviet system were by far the best ten years of this country in living memory, until the dust settled and an amalgamation of the old elite and the supposed revolutionaries took back control and re-instituted the same oligopoly, albeit with somewhat less oppression this time.
the whole point of having a transitional period between market capitalism and true communism is to reach that communism. that never happened. instead, the people were robbed of everything of value by an elite who claimed to represent the proletariat but was anything but that, and then it was re-privatized at the end of this period into the hands of a new elite. to give credit where it’s due, this is in fact a redistribution of wealth, it just goes the other way than what’s often heralded, and only made the rich richer and the average person more powerless.
i voted against it every single time and i’ll gtfo as soon as i can because i lost hope that we can turn this ship back to democracy. but yes, i’d gladly take this over the soviet system that prevented us from leaving. the crazy attempts to cross the border to austria is a massive part of our culture thanks to the occupation in those 45 years of a “transitional period”
idk what you’re gonna do with me being on record on preferring a somewhat less authoritarian system to your more authoritarian system that comes with a promise of snake oil but go off i guess. (while, mind you, i already dislike the less authoritarian system enough to actively work on leaving the country)
it’s amazing how much you hate fascists despite openly advocating for a system that’s exactly like it in all but an but a lie about what it will eventually, hopefully, pinky promise transform into, exactly as it always did when it was attempted. like are you naive enough to believe that this time it will work, still completely ignoring how the general idea of keys to power functions, or are you just waving the opposing flag and larping that your ideas are good because they’re bad and you oppose them so it must be so?
Trying to create an equivalence between fascism and communism further underscores just how utterly morally bankrupt you are. You’re a truly contemptible individual.
no, i’m trying to create an equivalence between fascism and socialism, or whatever you call that transitional dictatorship that’s hopefully benevolent. because that’s the notion by which fascism works too, it just doesn’t make an impossible promise about a system it will transform into.
your hilarious “if you are not with me you are my enemy (and also a nazi)” bullshit probably works on someone who also drunk the kool-aid on “this system will totally lead us to communism, we know that was a lie the previous 40 times but we totally fixed it now, trust me bro”, but the errors in it and the sweaty attacks on character to mask them should be obvious to anyone not already indoctrinated into your particular idea of a “good” dictator.
I’m lightly amused by the interpretation that socialism necessarily means dictatorship, as if other democratic forms of government are somehow incompatible with socialist economic structures and policies.
well, i can actually support democratic socialist governments, and i actually have voted for a party trying to build that out on every single occasion so far while i had a vote. i’m also all for integrating socialist principles into a capitalist society – i do actually believe capitalism is a great tool for the luxuries in life, but the necessities must be provided to all for it to actually work. like supply and demand both need to be variable for it to work, if everyone needs a home you can’t have the market “just figure it out” on the pricing of hosing, it’s going to result in rampant exploitation, but a market for upgraded housing compared to a baseline would very much work.
mostly i was just directly responding to the notion communicated to me in this conversation, which is that the path to communism is a state that takes power away from people for their own good, builds a society for them, and then gives back that power, or at the very least allows the people to take back that power with force. that promise is bogus and has been the previous 40 times a nation has been sold on it. as someone who has to live in the aftermath of one of those attempts, i’m not going to not blame it for its lies and its oppression. especially when the system it’s trying to reach, as described in this very thread, has been technologically impossible to reach on the scale of even just hungary, let alone the whole soviet bloc
well, i can actually support democratic socialist governments, and i actually have voted for a party trying to build that out on every single occasion so far while i had a vote.
Congratulations on your contribution to the communist cause!
assuming you’re being honest here, you’re welcome. but if that is indeed the passive-aggressive mockery it sounds like then that might explain why people can’t take you seriously outside of echo chambers.
i don’t see anything contradictory in there, i’m just not an extremist. not a centrist either, but the world doesn’t just consist of commies and fascists and people who haven’t picked a side yet. in fact, those aren’t even the two ends of the spectrum, and it’s actually rather insulting to most people to suggest so.
fascists can burn in hell as far as i’m concerned, but so can most of the authleft part of the spectrum. in general, it’s authies i’m the most opposed to. the economic right is stupid but a failing libright system tends to suck less than a failing authleft one. although neither suck as much as a failing authright one, that one i do agree with
(and imo even the two-axis political compass is super reductive but at least it gets the point across that i stand with neither fascists not communists)
i’m trying to create an equivalence between fascism and socialism, or whatever you call that transitional dictatorship that’s hopefully benevolent
i can actually support democratic socialist governments, and i actually have voted for a party trying to build that out on every single occasion so far while i had a vote
“Socialism is a transitional dictatorship” -> “I oppose dictatorships” -> “I vote for socialist politics”
i don’t see anything contradictory in there
If you’re relying on political compass memes to understand politics, then that might explain your misunderstanding.
i have no problem with socialist economic policies but i do have a problem with using authoritarianism and the facade of a “benevolent dictatorship” to achieve them.
the misunderstanding stems from the constant twisting of terms. like is communism what happened in the soviet bloc, or is it an as yet unachieved (and still probably technologically unachievable) dreamland that has never been tried? is socialism what the soviets had? or is that just a specific set of economic policies that the soviets did in fact have but completely divorced from its oppressive system? what did the soviets and its colonized countries actually have?
there is a certain system that the soviets have tried and it failed miserably. i would never support that system after seeing what it does to a country. but the way it comes off to me through this discussion is that socialism both is and isn’t that system, until observed, where the waveform collapses to whatever is more beneficial for the socialist’s argument here.
and yeah, i do think the political compass is also extremely reductive, but at some point we gotta figure out how to communicate whatever the hell we’re talking about.
Communism (as imagined by Marx and Engles) is broad and theoretical, and written in the revolutionary glow of the 19th century. “Leftist” discourse is still broad and theoretical, even 130 years after the final volume of Kapital was published. The people insisting on a single “socialist” model are often the people attempting to reduce it to a single (admittedly quite fascinating) period of history. All the reasons that period between 1914 and 1991 capture our collective imagination so frequently are the same reasons why it would be quite naieve to attempt to attribute any one ideology to the failure and collapse of any of the political projects of the time (of which there were a number, including the Soviet Union). The collapse of the Soviet Union was drawn out and complicated by international politics and post-war reconstruction; attempting to define socialism through the lens of that failure can really only be done in bad faith, or else is done while being willfully blind to the actual qualities of socialism and the actual conditions of the soviet collapse.
It’s not enough to say “I don’t want the soviet union again” unless you have an understanding of what it is, exactly, you are opposing. Will you simply sit around until a Lennin comes back around? If the Soviet Union was ever being remade in 2023, it wouldn’t look anything like it did when it was formed almost 100 years ago. If you’re opposed to authoritarianism, then oppose authoritarianism. Stand for democracy. If you believe in the socialist ideals, then stand for them, too. You don’t have to call yourself a socialist, but it sure as hell doesn’t help you if you willfully misinterpret people with shared interests because you’ve naively accepted a definition of socialism that is conveniently constructed around the failure of a single political project of the 20th century and is otherwise blind to any of its details.
It honestly just sounds like you’re confused, or otherwise quite determined to collapse a complicated and nuanced political and economic theory into a single failed entity (which you strongly oppose, I gather). I’m not really interested in playing this game of definitions or political compass navigation with you; if you’re interested in where your political values might overlap with socialist theory then I recommend you read a fucking book (pardon my french).
If you’re not interested in debating this, fine. Neither am I, tbh.
I’m just generally aggravated by this pattern where people posit that anyone who criticizes communism/socialism/any adjacent ideology just doesn’t understand what they’re talking about, and then when you actually make an attempt to figure out what the hell everyone supposedly doesn’t understand you get this mess of conflicting definitions expressed very confidently, where the only real pattern is that if you agree with communism/socialism/whatever that’s good, if you don’t that’s bad, now go figure out why. It kind of feels like talking to christians, actually.
You were given a very clear definition, multiple times, and you were dissatisfied, multiple times, because you were trying very hard to draw a line from that definition to that thing you don’t like. You fishing for an explanation is very clearly just an attempt to bait tankies into defending stalinism.
The amusing part is (still) that you seem to be a closeted socialist yourself.
how? abolish the standing beaurocratic heirarchy which perpetuates and expends its own power and the interest of the ruling class by inflicting violence on the working class. what that looks like depends on how the people who make up a community choose to govern themselves.
realistically I don’t expect a revolution of the proletariat to take place, so I promote the institution of robust mutual aid networks, radical solidarity (organized labor, intersectional liberatory philosophy), and resilient autonomous communities, to compete with the prevailing system of power.
attempts at anarchist-adjacent organizing have existed, and continue to in some communities, though of course execution varies, as does identity.
the USSR was not an attempt towards a stateless society, being a state-capitalist imperialist kleptocracy.
Nah, people who advocate for communism are actually educated and can define it very easily. Communism is a political economic system where the working class holds power in society and the means of production are under a combination of public and cooperative ownership. Thinking that communism is difficult to define is the height of ignorance.
Reflecting back on the breakup of the Soviet Union that happened 22 years ago next week, residents in seven out of 11 countries that were part of the union are more likely to believe its collapse harmed their countries than benefited them. Only Azerbaijanis, Kazakhstanis, and Turkmens are more likely to see benefit than harm from the breakup. Georgians are divided.
A remarkable 72% of Hungarians say that most people in their country are actually worse off today economically than they were under communism. Only 8% say most people in Hungary are better off, and 16% say things are about the same. In no other Central or Eastern European country surveyed did so many believe that economic life is worse now than during the communist era. This is the result of almost universal displeasure with the economy. Fully 94% describe the country’s economy as bad, the highest level of economic discontent in the hard hit region of Central and Eastern Europe. Just 46% of Hungarians approve of their country’s switch from a state-controlled economy to a market economy; 42% disapprove of the move away from communism. The public is even more negative toward Hungary’s integration into Europe; 71% say their country has been weakened by the process.
The most incredible result was registered in a July 2010 IRES (Romanian Institute for Evaluation and Strategy) poll, according to which 41% of the respondents would have voted for Ceausescu, had he run for the position of president. And 63% of the survey participants said their life was better during communism, while only 23% attested that their life was worse then. Some 68% declared that communism was a good idea, just one that had been poorly applied.
Glorification of the German Democratic Republic is on the rise two decades after the Berlin Wall fell. Young people and the better off are among those rebuffing criticism of East Germany as an “illegitimate state.” In a new poll, more than half of former eastern Germans defend the GDR.
Roughly 28 percent of Czechs say they were better off under the Communist regime, according to a poll conducted by the polling institute SC&C and released Sunday.
The majority of Russians polled in a 2016 study said they would prefer living under the old Soviet Union and would like to see the socialist system and the Soviet state restored.
The above memes are almost always made by Americans, whose brains are riddled with red scare brainworms and are completely devoid of any knowledge or understand of what the left thinks in Europe because Americans do not have a left.
The polls quoted are not representative because of the demographics change. The oldest part of the population, who grew up after WW2, prefers soviet union, but it’s because it was their youth. Their children, who spent most of their lives in “developed socialism” are much less happy about it. Young people, who grew up in independent states, are overwhelmingly against soviet baggage. And since 2010, when some of the quoted polls were made, older people died.
The only ones who actually regret the decay are russians who morn loss of their empire. Soviet union was just another incarnation of it. Also serbs and hungarians who are a bit isolated in their space.
It is especially strange to see this comment while ukrainians, one of the largest postsoviet states, overwhelminly support and enact literal fight against russian restorational imperialism which tries to bring russian-dominated soviet state back. Or are you questioning this proposition too?
Every single left wing party in ukraine was banned, and my friends in the country were arrested for being socialists. Speech in the country can not be considered free and opinion can not be measured accurately at the current moment in time. It would also be sort of foolish to attempt this with the country split into 4 regions between Ukraine proper, Crimea and the two Donbas republics. Ideally you would include all of them in that data, and if we went back in time and looked pre-2014 (when the civil war started) we’d see a lot of support in those regions. But now? Everything is a mess and I wouldn’t trust either states at war to give us reliable data.
I of course don’t consider the factions pursuing a restoration of the Russian empire to have anything to do with socialism either. For the record.
What is banned is communist party, and not because it was communist (it was not) but because it was pro-imperialist restoration, and also just for old people who wanted to remember their youth.
I am ukrainian and have ukrainian communist friends, and they are now just as fiercly antirussianimperialism as every one I know in Ukraine. It just shows that the leftist ideas live on, especially among young people (but also their parents, who in 2014 protested for ideas of their children, when children were assaulted for now good reason, starting all the violence). The problem is that any explicit reference to communism or state socialism is very tainted. So you can see why the title meme makes a lot of sense.
Those are just reformulation of the same concept which has nothing to do with communism, just with soviet state nostalgia. Plus a few were banned after Russia’s invasion for supporting the invaders (and they are related to the soviet nostalgia kind). Anyway they lost almost all support, I was even a bit surprised that any Ukrainian I know, even Russian-speaking pro-Russia-ties people are very anti-Russia now - being invaded feels even more like an betrayal for them. Of course I do not exclude that some Ukrainians genuinely support the Russia’s narrative, but among hundreds I know personally there is not a single one.
Banning certain parties is along the same lines as Germany banning Nazi party, or would you suggest that’s oppression of freedom as well?
Clearly, I do not enjoy this division with Russia, I have Russian family, friends, colleagues. But what their state did is just not the way to do things, it damaged irreparably relations and any remaining pro-Russian political parties or sentiments in Ukraine for a generation. I rather prefer some balance and discourse would continue but nobody did more to push Ukraine away from any pro-Russian politics (even shaped as soviet nostalgia with “communist” banner) than Russia itself.
Wow, the level of dishonesty in your post is startling. Almost all (or perhaps all?) of your links have serious problems with them. I wish I had time to debunk them all, but let’s go with just the first one for now.
7 out of 11 countries believe the end of the USSR harmed their countries rather than benefited them
According to the article itself, there are 15 countries that came from the Soviet Union, not 11. And obviously Estonians, Latvias, and Lithuanians would not say that the fall of the SU hurt them. (For the fourth, Uzbekistan, I don’t know which way they would go.) But “7 (or 8) out of 15 countries believe the end of the USSR harmed their countries rather than benefited them” doesn’t have the same ring to it, so you didn’t post that, because you are dishonest.
And that the study didn’t conclude that these countries wanted to return to communism or return to the Soviet Union (they don’t, other than Russians, the imperialists), it concluded that they believe that the fall of the SU hurt them. Which is plausible: collapse events aren’t pretty, even if it’s the collapse of an evil regime (see Iraq with ISIS filling the void for another example). You of course conflate the these points to pretend that these countries want communism and the SU back.
Maybe if you didn’t have such a ideological agenda you wouldn’t dishonestly cherry pick headlines for propaganda purposes?
The only problem with the Gallup link is only the title, which is (probably unintentionally) misleading. I didn’t say anything about it being propaganda, that’s just more of your bullshitting.
Spiegel? Propaganda? It’s literally the largest German news website mate. Trying to attack the authority of the source here is nonsense. And gallup is one of the most internationally recognised polling companies in the world largely for its refusal to do polls funded by any political party.
Authority source? What? It clearly shows where you come from (not referring to a specific country, just your environment). And yes, of course, those are “news” outlets like fox news and rt, right? /s. Oh look, Wikipedia article, it must be truth. /s. Sorry, I can’t be nice with propaganda agents. Bye.
And? Socialism does not mean not having a multiparty system. I get that you’re trying to imply that approving of a multiparty system or a market economy is somehow evidence of being against socialism but both of those things exist under socialism. Yugoslavia was a market economy in eastern europe under socialism.
Yugoslavia was a market economy in eastern europe under socialism.
There was a limited amount of pseudo-private “workers collective” (OOUR) companies starting from the mid 70s all the way to the breakup. It was certainly not a market economy in any meaningful way. The entire economy was propped up by foreign loans, which was a cause of so much inflation that the currency had to be re-adjusted twice, starting from the late 60s.
This is getting too semantic for my liking we would argue all day about whether Tito’s efforts were a market economy or not. You acknowledge that market economies and multiple parties do exist in socialist countries though correct?
The word “Socialism” is too broad to be useful here, it can refer to democratic socialism, which is the dominant political stance in Nordic countries, so yes, market economies and social programs can co-exist.
The nordic countries aren’t socialism ffs. They are social democracy, capitalist states with welfare policies and a ruling class of bourgeoisie. This is political illiteracy. Adding welfare to capitalism does not make socialism, it makes ““friendly”” capitalism (backed by imperialism of the global south). Read Imperialism in the 21st Century, it is suicide fuel for socdems.
A real example of democratic socialism to discuss would be any of the states created by the Bolivarian revolutions. Venezuela under Chavez. Bolivia under MAS. Etc. Socialist states with a proletarian ruling class.
7 out of 11 countries believe the end of the USSR harmed their countries rather than benefited them
That’s because USSR was designed intentionally so that its end would be a catastrophe. To prevent that end. However, since it was simply unable to exist further even on life support, what happened happened still.
End of USSR being bad doesn’t mean USSR being good. It’s just a choice between horrible end and horror without end.
Which area of Russia do you live in and what do the local people over 60 that actually lived in the USSR have to say? I already know of course and could post video interviews of such, but perhaps you could tell the thread what those people say.
Forgive me for assuming but I’m willing to bet you’re in your teens or twenties, making you at best 10 years old when it ended, meaning you have little to no actual recollection of what living and working was like. I could be wrong of course.
Moscow, I also had relatives in SPb (not anymore), other relatives in Nizhny Novgorod, other relatives in Voronezh, and some in Rostov-on-Don.
and what do the local people over 60 that actually lived in the USSR have to say
Different things for different people.
Educated people in general have to say on politics the same things that I said earlier, but they are very nostalgic over less criminalized popular culture, better technical education and rules being followed. So am I to some extent actually.
Less educated and poorer people would have uncritical approval of whatever they approve now. USSR, because “people had everything and everything was cheap and deficit is a lie”, even though they lived to see it and themselves mention it in unconnected conversations, but it’s always some enemies behind it, or maybe of Putin and so on.
Can be seen with my aunts in Armenia too, one of them is a pharmacist and sees things adequately, if pessimistically. Another is an accountant and goes into complete denial in any honest conversation about anything political, she just can’t bear it as some people can’t bear honest conversations about sex.
There may be gradations.
I already know of course and could post video interviews of such
That’s not an argument. You can make video interviews with all kinds of people of all kinds of demographics to say what you want. That’s what propaganda does since “video” became a thing. Discarded.
but perhaps you could tell the thread what those people say.
Yes, see the above.
Forgive me for assuming but I’m willing to bet you’re in your teens or twenties, making you at best 10 years old when it ended, meaning you have little to no actual recollection of what living and working was like. I could be wrong of course.
No recollection at all, I’m 1996, but since transition from USSR to modern Russia didn’t happen in an instance, in various institutions and organizations you can still see in some ways how it was. More in my childhood than now, but still.
Also naturally I have parents and grandparents, and friends’ parents and their grandparents, and parents’ friends, and so on, you get the idea.
I live in this society and you don’t, so I know more than you, which could help you if you weren’t in denial.
Educated people in general have to say on politics the same things that I said earlier, but they are very nostalgic over less criminalized popular culture, better technical education and rules being followed. So am I to some extent actually.
In Moscow? You’re not being fair. Educated people in the soviet union from Moscow lived extremely well and have very positive views. Engineers, scientists, etc will all say positive things. You know as well as I do that hundreds of video interviews will confirm this. Be fairer, claiming that everyone that supports the ussr among the over 60s is just uneducated is definitely untrue. This particular video series is in Moscow and this lady is exactly what I am talking about.
You can’t live in Moscow and say this is untrue. You’re being unfair.
No recollection at all, I’m 1996, but since transition from USSR to modern Russia didn’t happen in an instance, in various institutions and organizations you can still see in some ways how it was. More in my childhood than now, but still.
Brought up in shock therapy then.
if you weren’t in denial.
I’m not in denial. I’m asking you to be fairer. The data does not support your position. You know as well as I do that 75% of the country consider the soviet era to be when the country was at its greatest (and that this is easily verifiable from many sources), and you know damn well that 75% of the country aren’t all uneducated people. You are not being fair.
According to the absolute majority of respondents (54%), the majority of Hungarians had a better life under the Kádár regime (pre-1990) than today
The Kádár regime was the communist government.
there were even more respondents (61%) who said that the conditions for individual financial prosperity were more favorable under the Kádár regime.
lol
It is also worth noting that almost two-thirds of Hungarians (63%) said that there was predictable order and social peace under the Kádár regime
lmao
I like this research. Thanks for sharing.
EDIT:
The older an age group, the higher the proportion was of those who agreed that the majority lived better before the regime change. A significant correlation can be observed when looking at the educational background: citizens with lower education tend to believe that most Hungarians lived better under Kádár. Among the lowest qualified citizens, 62 and 27 percent are the share of the two sides, but even according to the relative majority of graduates (45%), most Hungarians lived better before 1990 than today.
So the older the Hungarian the more likely they are to believe that things were better under communism. So the people that actually lived in communism support it even more. Oh and the more educated people are the more likely they are to support that position too. I think the age thing will explain why the stat is slipping over time, the people that actually lived in communism are the people that support it more, and as they are dying they are being removed from the data.
Another hungarian here. Definitely before 1989 Hungary was probably known for having one of the best living conditions under the USSR’s sphere. It went pretty good in terms of spending power (heavy censorship in media if not aligned with the regime’s view, forced labor, government spying agents everywhere, couldn’t talk about 1956, etc.) until the 70’s when Kádár (the dictator of the country) realized that he can’t keep up these living standards, except if he takes up debt. So he literally taken up debt to keep up this facade, which really hit to us when we replaced the regime, and since the people have been so used to this kind of populist leadership type, they have chosen Orbán (current president) several times, despite the horrendous amounts of corruption, stomping freedom of speech, fearmongering, spying on opponents phones etc, just because he is really good at continuing the populist ideology which Kádár has done.
EDIT: I’m not saying capitalism is good, I rather support a hybrid model which the EU does currently. Too much state intervention is bad, and too much freedom for corpos are also bad too. In my case my government happily accepts building factories in this country which 100% is better for agriculture, and these corpos doesn’t have to pay much tax, can overtime workers and only pay them like 4 years later (yes this is legal).
Regulated capitalism can be a lot of things. Even good things, I claim. Furthermore, unregulated capitalism turns into feudalism, which is someything we see now in digital sphere a lot. EU tries to regulate capitalism to get the best parts of it, like rewarding fair competetive environment - paradoxically, fair competetion favors collaboration. An alternative to favoring individual and collectove agency is authocracy, and dictors never remain benevolent for long.
Capitalism as it exists outside of the Imperial Core tends to be shit. Eastern Europe is still outside the core for the most part, as is most of the world.
It’s shit inside the Imperial Core as well. There are few people profiting a lot from it, and they try to give barely enough leftovers to enough of the population to stop them from resisting.
Hungarian here. We had ten good years, then the same ruling class started to do the same shit they did back then but under a different name. But at least nowadays you can leave the country, which many do since – the frequent attempts to do so were an important cultural touchstone here in the 45 years of soviet occupation.
Trust me, no one wants the same shit back, that’s just a political talking point propping up Orbán’s pro-russian bullshit.
Of course nobody wants the same shit, I don’t want the same shit either, I know for sure that the hard left of mszp sit around where I am. Things can be so much better.
They did lead our last good government. And yes, I’d like that too, I voted for the coalition they were in in every election since I had the right to vote. I’m just saying that things being better is not the same as reinstating the same regime we had under the soviets, that would be pretty universally things going worse.
We’re in a failing capitalist system, but it still manages to be less oppressive than the failing socialist/communist/call it whatever you want system we had before.
Just wait until climate collapse hits and the food supply goes through cascading failures creating famines affecting 6 billion people. Then we’ll see when shit really hits the fan.
I think the way we argue over labels hurts us. If I use heavy regulation and government aid to limit the abuses in a capitalist system, at what point does the label change to “socialism”? I think we do ourselves a disservice to create these strict conceptions of systems like capitalism, socialism, or communism. Then when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea. And worst of all, we eliminate the possibility to take good lessons from multiple different systems and incorporate them into our system. I think we would be better served promoting policies on a case by case basis instead of using these huge words. And to be clear, I’m a bit of a hypocrite here. I’ve been mostly telling people I’m a “social democrat” or that I support “capitalism with heavy regulations”. But even those words can get picked apart and don’t really capture nuance. My main point is that I think this thread is a perfect encapsulation of how these arguments stop us from getting behind good policies when we bicker about the definitions of words that mean different things to different people.
Then when one fails we get to say “well that wasn’t true x”. And the labels allow people to boogeyman an idea.
Essentially a No True Scotsman fallacy.
I think it’s better to simply state that things like Stalin’s USSR weren’t communist. Period.
It wasn’t “almost communist”; it was a dictatorship. So to say it wasn’t “real communism” is like boiling a sock and saying it’s not “real dinner”. It’s not dinner at all, it’s a sock.
There was a soviet joke about a banner “our party is fighting for the title ‘communist’”. I can not translate it well, but it shows that people sensed the absurdity of the continious slogans about fighting for something they forgot is related to the meaning of the world communism. In the last decades especially, thd pride in building a better future through emancipation was replaced by simply nationalist pride and the pride in ww2 victory.
I find this arguing over labels more and more as I browse online, and it is sooo exhausting. I have noticed so many instances of arguing and discourse where both sides have similar ideals and want the same things, but argue with each other over stereotypes of labels on the other side, and point to the faults of the vocal rabid minority on the other side as if to prove a point. Sigh.
The label changes to socialism on the same day that the old institutions are thrown out and the new institutions are introduced.
Socialism is the transitionary stage of society between capitalism and communism. Its defining feature is that it is a society run by the proletariat as the ruling class instead of the bourgeoisie. Everything else about it can be in some state of flux based on the conditions, because it is transitional. Socialism is a process, not a magic button.
Social democracy is not socialism. You are just a capitalist that likes welfare. Your ideology has absolutely no desire to change the ruling class or overturn the system that is currently burning the world and leading us to destruction.
You are just a capitalist that likes welfare. Your ideology has absolutely no desire to change the ruling class or overturn the system that is currently burning the world and leading us to destruction.
I don’t think you help your case arguing this way. I’m not even dissecting socialism when I say that - just your approach to argument. You don’t know my ideology. Creating a strawman of my views isn’t going to convince me or anyone else that you have a good point. Hell, for a long time I did consider myself an actual socialist. I would love to lay out my reasons for my movement away from that, but I’m not sure you’re ready to have that respectful exchange of views.
The liberals obsessed with the “nordic model” still would’ve downvoted it. They don’t like having to wrestle with the reality of climate change. Our options are socialism or extinction.
Beginning an argument with “Your head is up your ass so far that I won’t bother arguing. I’m right no matter what.” is a sure way to have people dismiss your arguments outright. I say this all because I want my opponents to be good at arguing. I want to hear persuasive viewpoints. I don’t believe for a moment that I have all the answers, so I welcome any opposition to the beliefs that I’ve come to possess. If you believe that you have the answers, then I’m genuinely all ears. But unfortunately, arguing isn’t about being right - it’s about persuading other people that you are. The internet has made it easy to lose sight of this and argue with hostility instead of respect. I’m trying to be sincere here. Please consider the purpose of getting into these internet spats. I see so much hostility outright from people on the left and it genuinely sucks. I find that when I try to dig even a little bit into arguments for socialism or communism that I often hit this barrier of hostility. It’s not a good way of selling a viewpoint. And you can say that it’s not your job, but then I ask why we’re even here having this conversation.
Now, I’ll stop patronizing you. I’ll throw my argument out there so you can tear it to pieces. Back to labels - what socialism looks like to you depends on who you are. You say it’s when “the old institutions are thrown out and the new institutions are introduced”. I’ll take that to mean some form of government is in possession of the means of production across the board? My hesitancy towards socialism is mostly centered on my knowledge of history and the repeated trends of powerful institutions decaying into corruption and greed. I think socialism could genuinely work really well as long as the people in charge were kept honest. But my skepticism is towards the long term sustainability of such a system. Time and again we see institutions decay and fall prey to humanity’s worst impulses. The fall of the Roman Republic (and the regular chaos of the Roman Empire for that matter) is my classic go-to for this, but there are plenty of non-western examples as well. The best cases I’ve seen in my studies of various histories seem to be centered around cultures that dispersed their power into many smaller institutions. My problem with socialism is that it inherently says “we’re going to get rid of business corruption and government corruption by combining the two”. I think creating an even smaller, more focused center of power in society is a dangerous proposal - it becomes all the more easy for the wealthy elites to worm their way into that power and take control. Essentially you’re taking all of those wealthy capitalist greedy dirtbags and then moving them into the government.
Capitalism, on the other hand, removes business from government which allows, in theory, for the government to act as a counter-weight to business. Now, you and I both know that that hasn’t stopped wealthy elites from worming their way into capitalism and capturing government interests. But my main point here is that socialism isn’t solving that problem. It’s throwing fuel on the fire by cutting out the one supposed protection we do have, which is a separation of government interests and business interests. Ostensibly, when capitalism is working the way it should, the government is acting as a counterweight to business greed. I think there are better ways to strengthen that counterweight that don’t necessarily fall under the label of “socialism”. I think heavily regulated capitalism is better than outright socialism because in the ideal case the government is still acting as a tool of the people, flexing its power in opposition to businesses. The ideal case in socialism has the government acting as the businesses itself, which I believe would encourage greed and would actually cause even less incentive to address things like climate change.
Now, I’ll stop patronizing you. I’ll throw my argument out there so you can tear it to pieces. Back to labels - what socialism looks like to you depends on who you are. You say it’s when “the old institutions are thrown out and the new institutions are introduced”. I’ll take that to mean some form of government is in possession of the means of production across the board? My hesitancy towards socialism is mostly centered on my knowledge of history and the repeated trends of powerful institutions decaying into corruption and greed. I think socialism could genuinely work really well as long as the people in charge were kept honest.
Nah man this is nonsense and it comes from people who exist on the fringe of politics who don’t actually participate and have never actually had a political education or tried to give themselves one.
Socialism is exceptionally well defined as an ideology. You take Marx’s historical materialism and come to the conclusion that all of human history is driven by class struggle and revolution. You then reach the understanding that there is a possible ending of all class struggle through the abolishment of class (communism). After that you accept that communism can not be jumped to straight from capitalism because it would simply be crushed by capitalist states through being unable to defend itself. This leads you to the belief that a transition exists between capitalism and communism - socialism. What is the socialist state? A state in which the proletarian class of society overthrew the bourgeoisie(capitalist class of society) and built a dictatorship of the proletariat. This of course is not a dictatorship of an individual but a dictatorship of class, the opposite of capitalism where the bourgeoisie have designed a system and institutions that always comes to the outcomes that benefit them the most, instead it is a society where the proletariat designed their institutions to always come to proletarian outcomes. Economics and everything else within this socialist state differ from country to country, because conditions differ and what is possible differs. The important aspect is that the proletariat control the power.
This is a basic 101. The fact that you see liberals misusing the word socialism does not change the fact that this is definitionally what socialism is. We’ll argue about whether market economies or single party or multi party or completely centralised planning or something in between are best, but all socialists will agree on the above. It is the core definition of socialism and is more or less what Engels and Marx laid out 200+ years ago. It is materialist and it is non-utopian because it accepts that these states will have their flaws, socialism isn’t a magically perfect society, it has problems and struggles, the difference is that it comes to better outcomes for its populations than capitalist societies when compared at an equal level of development. (This is a very important point with regards to the difference that proletarian rule vs bourgeoise rule has.)
But my skepticism is towards the long term sustainability of such a system. Time and again we see institutions decay and fall prey to humanity’s worst impulses. The fall of the Roman Republic (and the regular chaos of the Roman Empire for that matter) is my classic go-to for this, but there are plenty of non-western examples as well. The best cases I’ve seen in my studies of various histories seem to be centered around cultures that dispersed their power into many smaller institutions. My problem with socialism is that it inherently says “we’re going to get rid of business corruption and government corruption by combining the two”. I think creating an even smaller, more focused center of power in society is a dangerous proposal - it becomes all the more easy for the wealthy elites to worm their way into that power and take control. Essentially you’re taking all of those wealthy capitalist greedy dirtbags and then moving them into the government.
This is contrary to what socialist institutional design actually is. You don’t get smaller numbers involved, you get much bigger numbers involved. The basic socialist democratic system implemented in the single party states is one where you start with a small group of people, 150 or so, called a worker’s council, these people select a representative and are intended to physically know their representative. This person then represents them at the local workers council. Then every representative on this council selects from among their reps someone to represent that council at the next tier. And the next and the next. 12 tiers up until the national congress, where the final tier selects leaders councils and various committees etc. This design removes popularity contests from the leadership and builds a democratic meritocracy where anyone at the top has also worked their way up through the entire system demonstrating actual ability to improve the lives of the people to their peers at every single level. The design of this differs slightly from country to country of course but these fundamentals remain the same. My point here is that you don’t have less leaders, or bigger centralisation of power, you actually have a larger spread of power across more people. Even the highest councils like the politburo don’t typically have a leader with special powers above anyone else on the council, even if we go to controversial figures like Stalin, he didn’t have special powers, he had exactly the same powers that the other 5 members of the Politburo had. But let’s stay off controversy. There’s a neat video of Cuba’s system here that I strongly recommend
Capitalism, on the other hand, removes business from government which allows, in theory, for the government to act as a counter-weight to business.
This is not really true is it? Capitalism is designed from the ground up to ensure that the people in power are the bourgeoisie - the financial elite. Assuming you’re american (correct me if not) who runs your country? The people on Wall Street do that’s who. No not the people. No not the government. The people on Wall Street run the country through the think tanks they fund dictating policy, through the media they own deciding who wins and who loses, through the political parties and representatives that they fund with hundreds of millions of dollars. This system is designed from the ground up to ensure that it does not produce proletarian outcomes, in fact there are several quotes I could give you where founders explicitly state such.
It’s throwing fuel on the fire by cutting out the one supposed protection we do have, which is a separation of government interests and business interests. Ostensibly, when capitalism is working the way it should, the government is acting as a counterweight to business greed. I think there are better ways to strengthen that counterweight that don’t necessarily fall under the label of “socialism”.
Under capitalism you have a system that is designed to chase profit. Everything about it is built around that central point. A very good way to chase profit is to hold the levers of power in order to wield them in a way to chase more profit. You can not counterweight this in a society where the people chasing the profit have all the money, own all the media, own all the politicians, own all the policy tanks, etc etc etc. This is the way bourgeoise-democracy is designed to come to outcomes that benefit the bourgeoisie. It is a dictatorship of class built for them.
The proletarian democracy on the other hand is a dictatorship of class built for the people. And it does a lot of shit things, because it’s a state and states do shit stuff. It does all the shit stuff that the capitalist states do in fact (and oh boy they’ve done a lot of shit things we could reel off). But what it also does is come to outcomes that are proletarian, and thus benefit a massively larger number of the population than the bourgeoise-democracy does.
You talk about needing government to mitigate business and I AGREE. But the reason government does not mitigate business in the bourgeoise-democracy is because the bourgeoisie run the government, so they obviously do what benefits their class. When you put the proletarians in power on the other hand you get a government that DOES mitigate the power of business, oppressively so in fact (oh boy they love to remind us of that). In exactly the same ways that the bourgeoise state oppresses the proletariat, the proletarian state oppresses the bourgeoisie. This is your government that mitigates the worst aspects of business. Properly.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think both of you have the same general ideas, I enjoyed reading both you and Grays thoughts.
You both argue that a heavily regulated capitalist system is preferable to current state, but you believe that is mostly impossible since the bourgeois/ruling class makes the rules and wouldn’t voluntarily self impose restrictions on themselves. How can that be prevented or mitigated within something like the American political framework?
How can that be prevented or mitigated within something like the American political framework?
You’d need a revolution or an economic collapse to happen first to trigger an absolutely massive amount of introspection among their class. I doubt revolution is viable at the current moment in time with the size of and loyalty that the american military has to the american civil religion and see no likelihood of it becoming viable in the near future so economic collapse is likely the only possibility. Two things will happen as a result of it, the military around the world will have to be reined in because it simply won’t be able to continue to afford it while also keeping the population in check, and also the bourgeoisie will get a scare from it occurring and have to ask themselves whether they want to continue to risk their existence in the global headquarters of capitalism. This would likely trigger new interest among them for a New Deal similar to the one Roosevelt implemented, which contrary to what americans think about him and other bougies of his time being “nice” it was actually implemented for the same reasons - stopping the threat of a working class revolution from occurring.
It might sound odd that an economic collapse would need to happen (which would make the country poorer) before seeing the ruling class implement better standards of living, welfare and protections. But it makes sense when you realise that these things are implemented not because the ruling class are nice but because they are threatened. Revolution is and always has been the primary threat that the working class can use to extort compromise from the ruling class. As we saw with Bernie, they are unwilling at the current point in time to allow it to go ahead, anyone that watched the democrats all conspire together to ratfuck him out of the race saw that.
This of course wouldn’t fix capitalism. It would just make the poor live a little better and rein in some of the worst excesses of their class in society for the sake of maintaining their rule.
Is economic collapse likely or possible? Not right now. The american dollar being the world’s global reserve currency allows them to print infinite amounts of money to prop up the system whenever it’s under strain. Dedollarisation is underway worldwide as an effort to remove that ability from their toolkit, when a financial crisis hits and they no longer have that ability then such a collapse is quite likely, this of course depends on when the next 2008 happens but you can count on those occurring every 10-20 years or so because it’s capitalism and the boom/bust is never ending.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, I definitely agree. I strongly believe the best avenue of success is through removing the dollar dependence. It feels like there was some rustling when Bitcoin started to gain traction but I believe that threats been coopted by the rich.
How can I subscribe to Lenincatfacts? You have a mastodon or something?
Nope just follow me around here I suppose. I’m more active on Hexbear.net though and there’s much much better and more educated comrades than myself there. I don’t really think crypto was ever a threat, it certainly manage to convince people it was to sell itself to libertarians though.
There’s no use arguing with Lenins2ndCat. I’ve argued with them before, and they already know they’re right despite any arguments or evidence to the contrary.
The liberals obsessed with the “nordic model” still would’ve downvoted it. They don’t like having to wrestle with the reality of climate change. Our options are socialism or extinction.
Climate change will not cause human extinction. Even the worst predictions aren’t close to extinction level. There’s 8 billion of us and we have technology.
Climate change will cause bad shit to happen. It already has. But bad shit is not the same as extinction.
Near-total collapse of the ecosystem is not something we are anywhere close to teching through. Whether there are a few enclaves of civilization clinging to life or not, life on Earth as we know it is being destroyed by industry.
Oh man we won’t go extinct so we shouldn’t worry about 80% of us dying ! Nevermind the absolutely hostile and inhospitable conditions those who do make it through will have for the rest of eternity.
Communism isn’t the issue the same way Capitalism isn’t the issue, the issue is rich people abusing working class and poor people. Removing democracy from these systems just make them absolutely horrid in the long run. Also China isn’t communist it’s state capitalist dictatorship.
Socialism in Germany was a middle-class tendency that was frequently co-opted by right-wingers. The German Communists tried to fight against this, but the Social Democrats sent in the Freikorps to kill them. So yeah, some German socialists abandoned their principles to become fascists while the Communists got killed and were later put into concentration camps. Not a good example, because it ignores every other piece of history that went into that story.
How are they communist? Their economy is obviously heavily based on capitalism, no redistribution of wealth. The only thing that lines up is the promise of socializing in the future? Though I don’t believe western politicians nevermind Chinese dictators.
I love how Westerners are just regular politicians, but Chinese people are dictators here. You know, when Mao made mistakes he was democratically pushed out while local elections were still running. I don’t understand why you mention no redistribution of wealth, however, because China is known for massive infrastructure projects, poverty alleviation, and constant quality of life improvements. That’s more redistribution than I see in the entirety of Europe, and this same Chinese “dictator” is the reason we might be able to save this planet from ecological death.
I guess I just really don’t understand the draw. Communism is a nice thought, until actual people are involved. People are corruptible, which is why communism is seen as utopian. It’s an ideal that only works under perfect circumstances.
I guess I just really don’t understand the draw. CommunismCapitalism is a nice thought, until actual people are involved. People are corruptible, which is why communismcapitalism is seen as utopian. It’s an ideal that only works under perfect circumstances.
Pretty sure I explicitly struck out all references to communism so I don’t know what you’re talking about. My comment was about the fanciful idealism required to justify capitalism. Show me one instance of capitalism implemented in democracy (which didn’t devolve into cronyism).
Switzerland? Netherlands? Hell, even France, Germany?
Invoking cronyism as a downside in itself is silly. It’s not what matters, what matters is the quality of life. And just because US and a few other capitalist countries have drank from the neoliberal fountain and are unable to stop, it doesn’t mean that that is the only way. In fact social democracies, of which there are quite a few examples around the world, are pretty much still capitalist democracies whit none of the crap neoliberal ideas lead to.
Every one of those four is a mixed economy with significant central economic planning and regulation. Without substantial oversight, capitalism tends to degrade into private monopolies with feudalistic tendencies over time. Like I said, it’s an idealistic system which looks great until actual people are involved. Then you have to either modify it past anything but a spiritual similarity, or drown in the neoliberal fountain.
There is no such thing as pure capitalism. If you’re talking about capitalism without regulations, that is called anarcho - capitalism and it doesn’t actually exist anywhere at the moment.
I am responding to your points with the same logic you initiated. You won’t acknowledge that you’re operating on a double standard where communism is a fundamentally idealistic and flawed whenever actually implemented, but it’s different for capitalism because reasons. This conversation never started.
Yes, I don’t disagree, except far more people benefit from our form of capitalism, and you don’t see the death numbers you do from the absolute rule that communism demands.
This isn’t to say there isn’t any death due to capitalism. Or any strife, just certainly not on the same scale. I would say out biggest death toll comes at the hands of our military-industrial-complex being capitolistic.
Add up chattel slavery, Trail of Tears, proxy wars, not-so-proxy wars, the general condition of the M-I-C you’ve mentioned, the general plight of the Global South, etc etc etc, and get back to me. I’m not sure the advantage is so definitive as you assert. “Externalities”, the economists call them.
It 100% does not even come close. Not saying those deaths weren’t terrible or unavoidable, absolutely not.
But also, you can’t blame a capitolistic society for trail of tears or any other mass genocide that came before that. We didn’t become capitolistic until 10 years after Trail of Tears ended.
Edit to add: granted, that doesn’t say much about how Native Americans were treated post TOT. Though, it’s certainly through capitalism that Indian casinos have become so successful. 245 tribes own casinos today, all of which rake in the funds.
Firstly, I know you’re not going to justify genocide by saying the survivors of that genocide get to have casinos. That’s so outrageously, ghoulishly evil that you can’t possibly have meant that and I must have misunderstood.
Secondly, where do you get the idea that capitalism started in America in 1860?
Thirdly, you ignored everything else I asked you to add up. You made no mention of slavery, or the Global South.
Fourthly, what’s fundamentally different between the colonial exploitations of mercantilism and private exploitations of capitalism?
I call your arithmetical integrity, or more laughably your ability, into question.
Lol. You definitely misunderstood. I didn’t say in my comment that TOT was okay because now they have cassinos. I’m not sure how you could possibly get that out of what I wrote. The claim I’m arguing against is that capitalism has caused more deaths than communism, which isn’t the case. Especially since capitalism wasn’t America’s economic governing factor until - yup - the 1860. Capitalism wasn’t the cause of the TOT, but it was the cause of the survivors ability to create wealth for their tribes.
Again, because you somehow twisted what I wrote into saying it’s okay that all those people died because casinos, the TOT was horrific. It shouldn’t have happened. Nothing can make up for that, even the wealth made by their survivors. But it wasn’t caused by capitalism, which is the original claim.
And no, I wasn’t ignoring everything else you pointed to in terms of deaths under capitalism, because slavery and other horrors certainly were due to capitalism here in America. Though, it has nothing against rhe numbers stacked under communist rule.
I also want to point out that there are going to be deaths under every form of economic governance, because that’s just human nature. There will always be people that kill other people, for a variety of reasons. The goal, then, is to find the one governance that kills the least amount of people in total.
I’ll also point out that it’s not like capitalism was absent one day in America, and then suddenly it was governing the country. Capitalism, like most forms of economic rulings, was a slow creep. It happened in small stages until the 1860s, when it became the dominating force in America.
It’s a fantastic ideology; arguably perfect. Unfortunately, it has never worked and will never work because it is incompatible with human nature. The more humans involved, the more extreme the incompatibility.
does anyone using the “human nature” argument even know what they’re saying?
what about “human nature” or “humans aren’t perfect” undermines socialism or communism? by what mechanism?
it feels like it’s a talking point that means absolutely nothing when viewed critically, and is only mindlessly repeated because it sounds cynical and “smart”
It’s simple, if everybody were to get rewarded the same no matter how hard or how little they worked, then everyone would put the bare minimum, or even worse, not do anything at all, and there would be no productivity in society. That is when the “government” which theoretically should not even exist in communism but in practice is impossible, would step in and force labor, as we saw for example with the Soviet Union.
Well, that’s inevitable whether you pay attention to the political environment you live in our not. It’s the environment that makes us sad, not the political aspects. And saying “I don’t get involved in politics” is just saying "I let other people build the environment"and somehow you expect that they’ll do a good job and build it in a way that suits you…
Corporatism is capitalism. A free market will always consolidate, monopolize, and expand its power. It’s not going to let some government get in its way. That’s why they become the government like in the US today.
Corporatism, at least in this current style is more than capitalism. In capitalism we let failed companies fail, in corporatism they are too big to fail so their failure is socialized and they are encouraged to suckle at the teat if the public purse.
Governments could take back control but they are run by weak people who are easily bought for pennies.
Governments have never “just let business fail” because under capitalism and its drive to consolidate and monopolize, the government will become an arm of corporate power. The weak and corrupt politicians are by design. The corporate welfare is by design.
This has been been seen throughout the history of capitalism and is the logical conclusion to its processes and theories. If you have a system based on infinite growth and profit seeking, the system will always devolve to exploitation, monopoly, and government control. Why? Because it’s profitable.
The very foundation that corporations working in their self interest will be a benefit to society is rotten, and has been shown to never work time and time again.
The only progress we have seen has come from public endeavors, independent actors, and the people. Never corporations. Only thing we get from corporations is 35 different types of Oreos and 20 different types of toothpaste all owned by the same company.
Add comment