this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
2 points (52.1% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7165 readers
781 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Much credit to this post.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 13 hours ago (7 children)

How's that radical rise of the proletariat going for those in Venezuela? How did it go for the Soviets after Lenin? How'd that whole great leap forward go for the farmers in Maoist China?

Venezuela is doing alright, not great but it isn't really a Socialist state. The USSR had great success in many areas, like a doubling in life expectancy, free healthcare, free education, huge increases in home ownership, and more. The PRC struggled during the Great Leap Forward, Mao was only about 70% good, Deng course-corrected back to Marxism-Leninism.

Or perhaps you are of the "These are not true Marxist regimes. There's never been a true Marixst state" camp. Gee, I wonder fucking why? Perhaps because it doesn't work. Marxism is unsustainable at scale.

No, AES states exist and Marxism works. Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, etc. are all guided by Marxism-Leninism. Socialism guides the largest economy on the planet, if it couldn't scale then it wouldn't have.

You want a commune, go for it. A town of co-op of farms, by all means. Perhaps even a small city state, just beware, if you introduce a power vacuum, some smooth talking snake oil salesman is going to try to fill it.

I am not advocating for Communes, I don't know where you got the idea that I was.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io -1 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

I think you are conflating most of your examples with Dictatorships and Capitalist-Socialist hybrid regimes.

I would also hardly consider Cuba or Laos as frontiers of innovation. Just curious, do you feel that innovation is an important aspect of civilization? If so, do you think socialism and innovation can thrive without the sacrifice of one to the other?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (2 children)

Can you explain?

Edit for your edit:

I would also hardly consider Cuba or Laos as frontiers of innovation. Just curious, do you feel that innovation is an important aspect of civilization? If so, do you think socialism and innovation can thrive without the sacrifice of one to the other?

Cuba and Laos are doing well, Cuba especially is great in the healthcare sector for innovation. Yes, Socialism and innovation thrive together. Markets are good at preparing the ground for public ownership and planning through the formation of monopolist syndicates, but that's really yhe biggest aspect, innovation is often held back by the profit motive.

[–] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Most of the people in these countries have reduced civil rights and do not get have much say in who rules them. Perhaps that is design intent, but I much prefer a system where people are free to make most of their own life decisions free of retribution and oppression.

Of all of your examples, I think Vietnam demonstrates the advantages of a planned economy, however, Vietnam is also a socialist-capitalist hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-oriented_market_economy and their people are also significantly less free than Democratic-Socialist countries such as Sweden and Finland: https://freedomhouse.org/country/sweden/freedom-world/2021

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 12 hours ago

The DPRK was bombed into oblivion and is one of the most sanctioned countries on the planet. Despite this, it isn't nearly as bad as you believe. Heck, why not watch 2 aussies get a haircut there?

Yes, liberal, non-Marxists believe the PRC to not be Socialist, go figure. The PRC is a Socialist Market Economy. The model is described as a birdcage, the CPC allows markets to naturally develop but only along their guidelines, and increases ownership as competition creates these new monopolist syndicates. Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good article going over China’s economic model. The CPC has the power it has as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it needs that power to maintain supremacy over their bourgeoisie. Communism is achieved by degree, not decree.

Can you not cite constant far-right Imperialist Think Tanks?

Of all of your examples, I think Vietnam demonstrates the advantages of a planned economy, however, Vietnam is also a socialist-capitalist hybrid

Socialist Market Economies are Socialist, not "Socialist-Capitalist hybrids."

and their people are also significantly less free than Democratic-Socialist countries such as Sweden and Finland: https://freedomhouse.org/country/sweden/freedom-world/2021

Ah yes, the far-right Think Tank evaluated some of the most Imperialist countries on the planet and said it was good. Those are Imperialist Social Democracies.

load more comments (3 replies)