Yeah. Nobody’s ever done real communism on a national scale. As in, not just being a dictatorship in charge of everything that funnels money and power to the top while giving communism lip service and the people get screwed.
I'm pretty sure the leftcommunists and anarchists and worker councils requesting for power to be really handed to the soviets which were purged by Lenin and Trotsky weren't actually landlords. But you never know, people from .ml may think people unwilling to obey the bolsheviks get labeled landlords too.
When your purges actually violate literally every Marxist principle and sabotage the revolution, isn't it kind of fair to accuse Bolsheviks, or at least the leadership, of being fake communists?
Stalin was a counterrevolutionary, die mad about it, we're Menshevik posting in this bitch.
If you didn't willingly ignore the sins of "your side" that'd be valid.
Meanwhile, the only criticism you launch at the Mensheviks is... They wanted to keep fighting the imperial powers?
Don't get me wrong, it was just a bad decision, but it wasn't, ya know, genociding fellow socialists.
I'd personally criticize them for thinking they needed to follow the traditional Marxist thought that economic liberalism was a required stage on the path to socialism.
The imperial powers that were direct threats to the revolution and they were already fighting, buddy, aka the Ottomans and the Germans. Hey, remind me how that worked out in the end? Did the People's Government get a seat at Versailles? No? Had to fight a war against fucking Poland first and then get even more people killed by Germany later?
And your argument is "the decision was unpopular," not that it was wrong.
You also find that they were not overthrown. Their political alliance was couped, like what happens in a "real democracy" when you push an unpopular policy. Even then, they supported the Bolsheviks anyways in the civil war.
Generally speaking, it's considered rude to murder all of your fellow socialists anyways if that happens.
Hey, remind me how that worked out in the end? Did the People’s Government get a seat at Versailles? No? Had to fight a war against fucking Poland first and then get even more people killed by Germany later?
And your argument is “the decision was unpopular,” not that it was wrong.
Wait are you out here arguing that Russia should have continue fighting ww1? Seriously? And that refusing to fight the war led to nazi Germany and their exterminationist war against the soviet union?
Sure bro. I'll stop thinking "Russia having a seat at Versailles would have changed history" because it would somehow not change history, and that's something you can objectively prove, lol.
I'll tell you what definitely wouldn't have happened though.
The repeated Bolshevik genocides of Jewish people.
I'll not comment on your apparent belief that Nazism was some fated historical inevitability, which sure seems like something a Nazi would believe and not a Marxist.
and that’s something you can objectively prove, lol.
Weren't you literally just claiming that if Russia stayed in the war the nazis wouldn't have happened?
Bwahahaha
The repeated Bolshevik genocides of Jewish people.
As someone who had jewish family which survived the holocaust, lol, wtf? The worst instance of antisemitism in the USSR was the doctor's plot, which wasn't a genocide.
I’ll not comment on your apparent belief that Nazism was some fated historical inevitability, which sure seems like something a Nazi would believe and not a Marxist.
Nazijacketing me for thinking that Russia staying in ww1 wouldn't have stopped the rise of nazism? Wow.
When your purges actually violate literally every Marxist principle and sabotage the revolution, isn't it kind of fair to accuse Bolsheviks, or at least the leadership, of being fake communists? Stalin was a counterrevolutionary, die mad about it, we're Menshevik posting in this removed.
I don't think the Mensheviks were the good guys either. Mensheviks would allow a way out for the old elites to remain elites if they kept on with the times (from aristocracy to bourgeoisie), the Bolsheviks just laid the way out for new elites (party apparatus) by choosing not to empower the working class. The leninist model followed somewhat similar structures everwhere from Hungary to Vietnam, and they always ended the same way: with the party elites opening the way to privatization after one or two generational changes and the heirs of the new system realizing that they'd get more material privilege by establishing capitalism, and without an organized, conscious working class capable of stop them.
I agree. A viable long-term economy needs an organized working class that isn't sleepwalking through life. Would be cool to make the economic system not inherently hierarchical also.
The SRs were agrarian socialists and supporters of a democratic socialist Russian republic. The ideological heirs of the Narodniks, the SRs won a mass following among the Russian peasantry by endorsing the overthrow of the Tsar and the redistribution of land to the peasants.
In the election to the Russian Constituent Assembly held two weeks after the Bolsheviks took power, the party still proved to be by far the most popular party across the country, gaining 37.6% of the popular vote as opposed to the Bolsheviks' 24%. However, the Bolsheviks disbanded the Assembly in January 1918 and after that the SR lost political significance. (...) Both wings of the SR party were ultimately suppressed by the Bolsheviks through imprisoning some of its leaders and forcing others to emigrate.
Following Lenin's instructions, a trial of SRs was held in Moscow in 1922, which led to protests by Eugene V. Debs, Karl Kautsky, and Albert Einstein among others. Most of the defendants were found guilty, but they did not plead guilty like the defendants in the later show trials in the Soviet Union in the late 1920s and the 1930s.
Note that these guys won the elections because they were the actually existing socialist movement in Russia and had been for decades. Lenin only led the government instead of them because he had the organization to overthrow the Mensheviks, not because the Bolsheviks were a better representative of socialism.
That's not true at all. The Mensheviks wanted to cooperate with the bourgeoisie and were therefore a bad representation of socialism. Lenin formed the Bolsheviks because the Mensheviks were being stupid. The country was also fractured after the revolution and many groups of counter-revolutionary groups were trying to overthrow the barely formed government. Meanwhile famines were ravaging the country. Understanding the historical context of Russia in 1917 and the economic struggles the people were dealing with is very important to understanding why things happened the way they did. Looking at the aftermath of a revolution where everyone is vying for power and killing each other doesn't automatically make the winner of that power grab the bad guys.
It was many factions. I'm just saying all of them were trying to have third revolutions while the people starved to death. At some point, revolutions end with a unifying government that isn't trying to murder each other. Lenin was not the villain you're painting him to be.
Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, "Show me where it's written in the book." When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from "a higher organ of leadership" but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.
The method of studying the social sciences exclusively from the book is likewise extremely dangerous and may even lead one onto the road of counter-revolution. Clear proof of this is provided by the fact that whole batches of Chinese Communists who confined themselves to books in their study of the social sciences have turned into counter-revolutionaries. When we say Marxism is correct, it is certainly not because Marx was a "prophet" but because his theory has been proved correct in our practice and in our struggle. We need Marxism in our struggle. In our acceptance of his theory no such formalisation of mystical notion as that of "prophecy" ever enters our minds. Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well. Of course we should study Marxist books, but this study must be integrated with our country's actual conditions. We need books, but we must overcome book worship, which is divorced from the actual situation.
How can we overcome book worship? The only way is to investigate the actual situation.
Yes, which is and has been practiced in AES countries. Just because higher-stage Communism, ie a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society hasn't been reached globally yet doesn't mean we don't know if it will work or not.
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn't that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It also keeps being built in third-world countries, usually blockade, sanctioned, or regime changed by Western countries so it's also hard to tell without those variables. Although so far it has a pretty good track record for equal levels of starting development.
Real everyone-eats-ice-cream-and-dances-all-day hasn't been tried either. Just because you describe a set of circumstances doesn't mean those circumstances can exist, and it especially doesn't mean they can be stable long term.
Scarcity is a fact of nature. You cannot rationally distribute scarce things without knowing people's preferences, so you either need to continuously solve the economic knowledge problem (which requires a huge state apparatus, which will be taken over by a dictator), or a means of exchanging goods between people to better suit their preferences (at which point you have invented capitalism).
I know, also I didn't say I'm a communist fan, all I'm saying is that they rebranded totalitarian form of governments under communism so we don't actually know if Marx communism works or it's a flop
The Western concept of totalitarianism was constructed by Hannah Arendt, who came from a wealthy family and so unsurprisingly was anticommunist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. It’s a bourgeois liberal, intentionally anticommunist construct that lumps fascism and communism in the same bucket.
U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.
Let's see: Communism
A system of government where the country's wealth is concentrated into a small, ruling class of billionaires, who use the media they own to keep the lower classes fighting with each other while they . . . the rich . . . run off with all the farking money.
Oh wait. that's capitalism. I don't know how I got those two systems confused.
Also victims of communism: anyone aged 1-99 who happens to be the wrong family, who practices wrong think, who has family members who practice wrong think, who have an opinion, who like to be different, and I can go on for a while....
People like you should maybe watch 'the chekist". Once you're done and not crawled up in fetal position while crying maybe you can think for a little bit about what it is that you really want.
Seriously, you tankie types are nauseatingly naïeve.
Rent seeking behavior is wrongthink.
Being Royalty is practicing wrongthink.
Communism is built on Critical Theory making criticism of society its bedrock. I dont consume propaganda, I try to stick to primary sources as close as possible and make my own.
Seriously you Capitalist Apologists are so brainwashed by literal Cold War Propaganda its pathetic.
The USSR did good things and bad things but reactionaries like to pretend it was all bad. There are hard numbers about life expectancy increasing, better life for women, research achievements, general quality of life and happiness metrics, and more that increased. There was lots of bad parts, but same in the US.
There were anti gay laws on the books for the US, and towns you couldn't even walk in while black. Hell, there are still some sundown towns in places in the US. If you just point out that stuff, or if you lived in such a horrible area or had family who did spreading their stories, then it will just come off as a hell hole. The US does suck, but it's not just Skid Row, the projects, lynch mobs, coups, wars, etc. Same for the USSR. There were good things we can save and build on, and bad things we need to avoid for future socialist projects.
It's not like the first attempts for democracy went well, either. But I wouldn't diss it in the Middle Ages and say we can only do monarchies, the pinnacle of political achievements, just because " it never succeeded. It fell in Greece and the Roman Republic and every other time it's been tried, and has never worked ever and thus is always doomed to fail."
My problem with people citing those metrics is that they are true for Russia itself while ignoring that a large reason for those improvements was colonialism done to the occupied regions. Industrialisation was another thing that improved those metrics but that was hardly unique to the USSR. Some of those regions may have had benefits but here in Estonia it was pretty much all around bad. After the occupation ended the quality of life here improved rapidly.
As far as examples for socialism I'd say the USSR was an all around failure but people still defend it and even Stalin who basically guaranteed it's failure as a socialist project. In the baltic region the word communism is basically poisoned because of the USSR.
You need to look at the referendum to maintain the soviet union before you say shit about imperialist Russia. Non-russian SSRs were most enthusiastic about keeping the USSR around.
The one boycotted by 6 of the 15 territories? Or the ones that followed in each that led to them declaring independence which in turn led to the collapse of the soviet union?
The baltics were 3 of those boycotting territories and we had similar referendums for independence which, I'm pretty sure, all got over 70% support.
That's the one, where Russians had less interest in the USSR than the participating territories.
Or the ones that followed in each that led to them declaring independence which in turn led to the collapse of the soviet union?
Sure, and not the presidential coup. Get real.
The baltics were 3 of those boycotting territories and we had similar referendums for independence which, I’m pretty sure, all got over 70% support.
And the Baltics are doing so much better now.
I'm reminded of a story of Lithuania charging holocaust survivors for fighting as partisans against the nazis in WW2. It happened in 2009. They've gotten more fascist since. Wonder what itd be like if the USSR was never overthrown.
And a lot of attempts have also been great at raising the standards of living for the general population, as well as for economic development in a relatively quick amount of time.
In the USSR those improvents were for Russia, not so much for their colonised regions where they exported resources from. Industrialisation also helped but that's not really unique to anything.
And socialist nations like the GDR were better on gay rights in the late 80s than capitalist nations are now.
And Cuba has the most lgbt equality of anywhere right now
And China is opening state sponsored trans Healthcare clinics, including for children
Meanwhile in the US if you're trans you can't live in half of the country and you're worried about getting hatecrimed in the other half. And you have pundits of the capitalist class calling you pedophiles and "the jews of gender"
Also, gay liberation movements in the imperial core were mostly led by communists, you can't give credit to capitalism for being forced into granting concessions.
Somehow I assume you don't associate capitalism with chattel slavery and apartheid. But you do associate corrupt authoritarianism with economics when it is system that you don't like.
I think they are very much capitalist. And then surely the Civil War that poors fought on plantation owners' behalf should also be blamed on capitalism?
I was in my early 20s when the Soviet occupation collapsed here, the victims here were everyone not high up in the party.
Sure, capitalism fucking sucks but pretending the USSR was anything other than just bourgeoisie rule is delusional. The oligarchs were just called the communist party then.
Not really. You're talking about what happened after the USSR. Which yes, was horrible for the quality of life of people who lived in numerous countries all over the globe, but that's more of an indictment of capitalism than communism. The looting of the government coffers to privatize everything and create oligarchs was a result of the post-USSR shock therapy.
Ah, I misinterpreted you. Sorry about that. But it's hard to tell exactly what you're talking about without more details. Afghanistan, maybe? I get if you don't want to dox yourself, as someone privacy minded, but it's hard to know how to respond without more context.
Estonia but it's not like that was not the case elsewhere in the occupied areas. Russia mostly exported resources out of there to benefit itself which is a large reason how it raised quality of life in Russia itself.
Oh ya, I should have guessed. There are a couple Baltic states that did increase in living standards and make some rapid industrialization improvements, but they also made some definite mistakes with handling some things there and trying to do some Russia centralization. It made some of those places very right leaning, which is unfortunate.
At least it generally shared technologies improvements and such with those places. It doesn't make the USSR worse than the US, for example, which ruined basically all of South and Central America even worse than the USSR did for its neighbors. I want to emphasize that it made some big mistakes, but for some reason people contribute those mistakes to communism, when the US and other capitalist countries had even worse occupations with even worse exploitation, but for some reason that never leads to people saying capitalism is terrible and awful, etc. The world is just too propagandized by the West. The difference is that imperialism and exploitation is basically required by the capitalist system, while it's a side effect of militarization under a siege mindset for communism. It happened, and will probably continue to happen as long as communism requires capitalism characteristics to jumpstart production, but it's not a constant requirement of the system like capitalism's necessity for the line to go up leading to always finding new markets and resources to take.
I never said the US was better than the USSR, I don't really give a shit about the US. One shit country being slightly better than another one does not make it good.
I like how you characterised it as "some mistakes" . The whole famine business that ravaged the USSR was caused by sheer incompetence. A guy appointed by Stalin to manage agriculture came up with a fun idea of "communist crops won't compete for resources" and forcing farmers to plant crops way too close. I'd say that was one of the greatest mistakes. There was also some killing the gays and some ethnic minorities but I think those were intentional.
I also don't attribute anything to communism, only the USSR, communism hasn't existed. I also attribute being the worst advertisement imaginable for communist to the USSR. They kinda ruined it for everyone else by calling themselves that.
You should look into south america in the 70s and 80s. The CIA's unrestrained human experimentation in the regiom perfected this ideological soft power superweapon or "strategic ideological construct". Trying to find exactly what these kinds of things are called.
I don't understand why anything anti capitalism these days is automatically communism. It's such a large swing from one side to the other. I just want my taxes to pay for healthcare, infrastructure, and education instead of wars and prisons. I want to stop getting fucked by corporations that have infinitely more money than I can ever imagine. I don't think that makes me a communist. I'm just anti-fucking-the-people. Capitalism can fuck people. Communism can fuck people too. I support Corpo-Politico-Celibacism. Stop the fucking.
Edit: Okay, fuck the people. You guys must have this figured out.
Keep in mind that many Americans don't know Socialism from Communism, as they've been schooled that everything responsible for happy Scandinavians is somehow bad.
Should I also keep in mind that most people don't know how nice Communist counties were to live in? Seriously, give me one, just one country that did communism successfully and where all the people could live in freedom and pursue happiness. Just a single example.
Is there a Capitalist country where all people can "live in freedom and pursue happiness?" What does that even mean? What are the solid metrics by which you track that, so you can say a country passes or fails that?
Yeah, try just about all northern European countries. Are there people that have fallen off the band wagon? Of course there are, shit happens everywhere. However, everyone there loves better and more meaningful lives than in ANY communist country.
I don't recall the last time in northern Europe (second world war aside) where literally everyone except a few elites (hello Russia) had to stand in line for hopefully some food
Why do you believe Northern European countries have it better than AES countries? Do you believe if an AES country copied the Northern European model, their metrics would match Northern European countries?
Why do you believe inequality is rising in Northern European countries and safety nets are being cut over time?
There's no country where every single person lives in freedom and happiness. But there are numerous countries that have significantly improved the quality of life for the vast majority of people compared to what they had before, including Cuba, Vietnam, and China.
It may be true that in some cases the quality of life is higher in capitalist countries. But there's a good reason for that! Historically, the countries most prone to socialist revolutions... were countries with some of the lowest standards of living in the world!
Despite this, China has recently eclipsed the United States in life expectancy. If you compare the two countries' life expectancies before the Communists came to power, no one would expect that to happen! Why? Because for the average rural Chinese person, their way of life was virtually unchanged since ancient times with a life expectancy of 35, comparable to that of the Roman Empire.
Anti-communists would have us compare communist countries against either an imagined utopia, or against countries starting from a significantly higher level of industrial development. But those comparisons are not relevant to the question at hand! In order to evaluate the efficacy of socialism, the relevant comparison is the system that actually existed before, and what it was on track to do! And in cases like China, we can clearly see that the quality of life was miserable and stagnant for the vast majority of people, until the communists came to power!
Why do Westerners fail to account for this vital evidence? Because people used to a higher standard of living would take these improvements for granted! For a village tailor, being able to afford a sewing machine could be life-changing - but someone living in the imperial core would have no relevant experience to relate to that! The only thing they would notice is how poor the person still is, regardless of how much or how quickly their life is improving!
First of all, communism isn't utopian. Even communists don't think it will be some paradise where all worries disappear. You'll still have to fight racism, sexism, bad weather, famines, etc.
But it's often better for an average person from a country of a starting equal level of economic development. You've got to give it the "If I was reincarnated in a random person's body, where would I want to be?" test. US is a good answer, but it's got a way higher level of economic development with a big headstart. Even then, you could end up in the hood and die early and stressed. When you give the test comparing countries of equal starting economic development, it becomes a lot more muddled.
Like, would you rather randomly live in Cuba, or Somalia? The place where you get free education, health care, etc or a place that is also extremely poor but you don't get that stuff? You could reincarnate as some rich, warlord there, but would you want to take that chance when you could reincarnate in Cuba as literally anyone and not be worried about ending up homeless? When giving realistic comparisons like this with proper historical context, and you do it over and over again, they tend to come out on top.
People fleeing communist countries en mass sure is a mystery. Who could ever know why they built the Berlin Wall or why Cuban families risk their children on rafts to get to a capitalist country
So did the United States untill very recently, what is your point? Advocating for Communism isnt Advocating for a return of the USSR you absolute ham sandwich.
People move to areas with better material conditions. Assuming that is the fault of Socialism and not of countries being in different stages of development is immaterial and ignores the trajectory of nations, as well as the geopolitical landscape.
For example, in the GDR, education was high quality and free, but wages were lower than in West Germany. Many highly educated people in GDR attempted to leverage their free education for higher wages in the West.
As for Cuba, people fleeing are typically the people prosecuted during the revolution, ie plantation owners. People still flee from less developed to more developed countries, which is why people flee from Capitalist states to other Capitalist states.
Living conditions for the majority of the population in Cuba are far better than in any capitalist Latin American country. This is despite the brutal blockade on Cuba by the burger empire. Please go make a clown of yourself elsewhere.
im on latin america and despite being bad over here, i'm a bit skeptical on this one. the blockade is currently making sure cuba can't even get basic medication in sufficient quantities.
i'd say its safer to say they are much better in some aspects, the ones they can control.
The kind of abject poverty you see in Latin American countries simply does not exist in Cuba. Everyone has access to basic necessities, education, and healthcare. Cuba has even higher life expectancy than US.
when it comes to inequality i can agree its probably among the best, if not the best.
but despite efforts to provide it, they don't always get basic necessities because of the embargo. there is a not insignificant amount of poverty in cuba too.
Of course, the blockade is doing incredible amounts of harm. My point is that even despite that, Cuba manages to do a better job ensuring a minimal standard of living than capitalist countries in Latin America. What this shows is that communism performs better under extreme stress than capitalism does under best conditions.
He did adopt a tougher stance, because of the looming world war. However, Stalin wasnt nearly as much of a tyrant the west paints him to be. Not to the honest working class.
No. Moving goalposts means there is no definitive measure of completion. Communism has one. If you've read anything at all about it, you would know that. But hey you were told it was bad in school, and thinking for yourself is difficult. You do you.
That's not how words work. Things mean what they are used to mean.
Y'all understand this perfectly when describing "capitalism." That word becomes synecdoche for every level and aspect of modern reality. By definition, capitalism is only really the part where having money makes money, but nobody has any trouble understanding what you mean when you refer to its consequences and implications. Nor would you respect if libertarians split hairs about "corporatism." Like oh, this isn't capitalism, because it lacks X and Y and Z, which have never existed, so how dare you talk about bad things that actually happened.
It's more that anticommunists judge Socialist states by their inability to fulfill Communist ideals at the level of development AES countries are at, as though they exist in a perfectly frozen picture absent history and trajectory.
Yeah sure dude, existing in a context is why people condemned police states.
'People who don't know the difference between these terms must be using the more-recognizable one as an oblique criticism of the gap between theory and practice' is the most .ml take I have ever seen.
Condemning the USSR and PRC for not achieving a global stateless, classless, moneyless society is ridiculous. This isn't a gap between theory and practice, lol. Communism isn't anarchism.
Yep, but I also understand what Communists actually advocate for and understand that countries building Communism should be judged like every society: with respect to trajectory, not as a snapshot.
Communism isn't a goal because it is stateless, classless, and moneyless. Rather, Communism is a goal because the process of getting there is to create a society benefitting all and directed for the working class, by the working class.
You have repeatedly ignored explanations of what people are doing and why, to instead engage in scoffistry at opinions sourced from the vicinity of your pelvis.
Repeated efforts to highlight how that's what you're doing, and get back to what people say and mean, led you to dismiss people entirely. "Perhaps what you mean isn’t worth much?" is a confession.
No it isn't, but it does highlight the main issue:
Communism would work if it weren't for people trying to co-opt it for power
Fully Automated Luxury Space Communism is the end goal (since, it being automated, means there should effectively be no way to hijack it), but we ain't getting there for a long time. Let's go for socialism first and work from there
That's just human nature unfortunately. We like to help one another and hate to see another human being suffering because we know that could be us. But capitalism has conditioned and limited us out of our human nature to help one another, because either there is no profit in helping the poor or destitute, or we lack the means to help.
People are products of the environment. These influence the ideas people have, who then shape their environment which in turn further influences the ideas people have.
Being conditioned by the material conditions of Capitalism is the opposite of Idealism, it's Materialism.
Its a realistic view of humanity, not a realistic view of the world we have allowed the greediest among us to create. You should read The Dawn of Everything A New History of Humanity, it goes extreme in depth to explain just how wrong your nihilistic view in humanity is, cooperation is the norm, what Capitalism has created is the anomaly.
This goes into a fight over philosophy of human nature. However, since the days of the Roman republic over 2000 years ago where capitalism wasn't even a concept, people have used political systems to consolidate and gain power over others. It is undoubtabele that there will be people who try to co-opt the system for their personal gain
I've been to Capitalist countries, I've been to Communist countries.
Guess which system has their people immigrating to the other system on rafts with their children, just to try the other system. Guess which system builds walls to keep people IN, guess which system has beggars asking for milk for their children instead of money.
Your comment isn't the dunk you think it is when it brushes up against the harsh truth that is reality.
Bruh I've seen families begging for food outside of grocery stores in the United States of America. Now what communist countries had beggers asking for milk?
Every source i can find puts homelessness rates in China at max 1,000,000 and all of them say that they live in shelters, not on the streets.
Cuba had been under embargo from the USA since 1962.
Laos has a massive poverty proborm because of debt which is a capitalist construct.
That statistic on Vietnamese homeless Children is 16 years old, and every source ive found states they have been making great strides since then to fight poverty and homelessness.
You Capitalist Apologists are so blind to reality it is pathetic there are 18 capitalist countries with higher homeless populations than China. You literally have to divorce yourself from reality to attack Communism. You might as well be covered in shit, while mocking someone for having toilet paper stuck to their shoe.
Socialism is usually built from the remains of a previous brutal regime. Starvation doesn't end overnight.
This is the case for both Russia and China. After stabilizing they had an unprecedented improvement in nutrition, longevity and such.
The same can't be said for the vast majority of capitalist states, who still experience starvation despite being perfectly capable of feeding everyone.
