6 ms·

Communist systems took poor and often feudal countries or colonies and made them into regional powers or superpowers. The liberal narrative that we've reached t

Communist systems took poor and often feudal countries or colonies and made them into regional powers or superpowers. The liberal narrative that we've reached the end of history because of their "failure" is absurd in the extreme, particularly given the outside pressures and violences they (usually) weathered. Instead of, "what's wrong with communism!?", we should be asking, "if communism doesn't work, why was it necessary for capitalist countries to direct the entirety of their foreign policies into violence and sanctions against communists in their own communist countries and anyone who so much as requested aid from them, despite capitalist countries refusing to supply such aid?" The reality is that communist countries actually did work and worked better than the prior state those countries were in, but were targeted for systematic erasure by the rest of the planet. When communist countries fell, life did not get better for those who lived there. It got worse. Pensions were privatized or canceled. Public programs eliminated. Promises of multi-party democracy were amended to disclude communists or anyone like them, with violence. Quality of Life indicators plunged and with no option to return to the former system (a certainly authoritarian condition imposed by the newly-in-power, Western-supported governments), these countries languished for decades and were and continue to be subjected to new depravities and exploitation even as they claw back some semblance of dignity. Look at polling in the former Eastern Bloc. In Russia. In China. It's still very popular and it's not because of the chauvinist (and often contextually racist) idea they're all brainwashed goons. They saw the changes and often have a critically supportive view of a return. They say that most things were better, but acknowledge those that were worse, and when they say they'd support a return it's not to an identical state, just a similar one. But their political systems prevent this. One must wonder why.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Instead of, "what's wrong with communism!?", we should be asking, "if communism doesn't work, why was it necessary for capitalist countries to direct the entirety of their foreign policies into violence and sanctions against communists in their own communist countries and anyone who so much as requested aid from them, despite capitalist countries refusing to supply such aid?" The Cold War would be an answer, unless you somehow deny that communists were equally dedicated to subverting and overthrowing the west. > The reality is that communist countries actually did work and worked better than the prior state those countries were in I disagree that this is a valid generalization. There may have been some Pareto improvements and its clear that certain people benefitted and others did not. > When communist countries fell, life did not get better for those who lived there. It got worse. This is because the centrally planned economy depleted vast amounts of capital in their desperate struggle to keep the economy moving and competitive with the west. > They say that most things were better, but acknowledge those that were worse, and when they say they'd support a return it's not to an identical state, just a similar one. But their political systems prevent this. One must wonder why. Cynically I could offer the same answer a communist would offer when asked why people weren't permitted to own factories in the Soviet Union: because that would put "the wrong people" in charge of the means of production. Less cynically, its not clear how a centrally planned economy would know how to correctly allocate resources, so there's no reason to return to the central planning model in the absence of a solution to the problems that caused it to fail in the first place.
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  > The Cold War would be an answer That's not the answer, it's the mechanism of that violence. > unless you somehow deny that communists were equally dedicated to subverting and overthrowing the west. I will absolutely deny that. Note the number of capitalist governments coup'd by communists. Note the number of invasions and constant wars of The West. Look at Vietnam. Western involvement was long-reaching, direct, violent, and generally within other countries fighting grassroots revolutions / civil wars or throwing off colonial it imperial influence. When attempting to find similar situations started by communist countries, we find important differences. Dragged into conflicts on their borders. Literally fighting a genocide directed at themselves. Long-standing territorial disputes on their borders. > I disagree that this is a valid generalization Feudal backwaters subject to regular famines became superpowers that eliminated homelessness and hunger. And the fall of those systems corresponded to drops in QoL over and over and over again. What other tests would you want? > This is because the centrally planned economy depleted vast amounts of capital in their desperate struggle to keep the economy moving and competitive with the west. Capital is just stuff or money tradeable for stuff. The stuff didn't go away after color revolutions. But public programs were absolutely privatized or abolished by liberal capitalist governments in moves aligned with their ideologies - ideologies you can find throughout this site, in fact. > Cynically I could offer the same answer a communist would offer when asked why people weren't permitted to own factories in the Soviet Union: because that would put "the wrong people" in charge of the means of production. Ah, but in that case there's a consistent ideological position: bourgeois democracy and ownership must be curtailed because otherwise it will grow and eat you and those you love. According to liberal democracy, you're supposed to be able to seek and form a representative government in a multi-party setting - yet they restrict those parties to force bourgeois options to be the only ones available. The supposedly core ideals of The West clearly bow to capital when push comes to shove and one should question the propaganda that it's these ideals that won or were even the actual goal. > Less cynically, its not clear how a centrally planned economy would know how to correctly allocate resources, so there's no reason to return to the central planning model in the absence of a solution to the problems that caused it to fail in the first place. But the vast majority of several countries want that return, with support increasing with age - the people who actually lived under communist party rule. They are prevented from doing so by their political systems. It cannot be voted in. Democracy clearly doesn't mean that much to The West, right?
asdfman123 6y ago
I read a book that argued that the primary thing communism accomplished was smash horribly unjust feudal states and clear the way for liberal capitalist democracies. I'm still under the belief that too much centralized planning can severely hurt an economy but that organization is way better for the economy than everything being locked down by a narrow class of land owning elites.
LoSboccacc 6y ago
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-ppp-selected-countries-1900-2010-GK-international-US-dollars_fig2_309030226 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-ppp-selec... even disregarding the other issues with communism, the central premise is wrong: it's quite apparent that what growth centralized economy countries enjoyed was far at a lower rate than free market counterparts, up until they opened up to private initiative.
kolinko 6y ago
I grew up in Socialist Poland. What you're saying is absurdly far away from reality. Very few people say that things were better. It was a miserable time back then, and the life has drastically improved for the vast majority of the society. When there was toilet paper delivered to the stores, it was a big deal. And by "toilet paper" I mean a gray, thin, one-layered, recycled one. It's weird we didn't switch to the asian water-bidet style then. There was literally nothing available in the stores. Imagine your local supermarket, but with literal empty shelves, just vinegar on some of them. There was even a joke about a guy who comes to a hardware store: - I'd like some screws - We don't have screws - I'd like some nails then - We don't have nails either - Well, what do you have? - Nothing. - Why don't you close the store down then? - We don't have the locks either. This was a reality for dosens of millions of people back then. Saying that anyone misses that time, and that many people had it better is some kind of a sick fantasy. Also, it wasn't due to US politics (although it didn't help). With the private enterprise being trashed, and people demotivated to do any sort of work (what for? "If you sit, or you stand, 100zł payment is your right" - another common joke), it was bound to collapse. If anything, people in Poland saw West world as the one that was fighting to get us out of it all (and as a place of freedom and possibility). And really - the crazy 90s after the communist rule fell, we saw a huge increase in the quality of life for almost everyone.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> Instead of, "what's wrong with communism!?", we should be asking, "if communism doesn't work, why was it necessary for capitalist countries to direct the entirety of their foreign policies into violence and sanctions against communists in their own communist countries and anyone who so much as requested aid from them, despite capitalist countries refusing to supply such aid?" The Cold War would be an answer, unless you somehow deny that communists were equally dedicated to subverting and overthrowing the west. > The reality is that communist countries actually did work and worked better than the prior state those countries were in I disagree that this is a valid generalization. There may have been some Pareto improvements and its clear that certain people benefitted and others did not. > When communist countries fell, life did not get better for those who lived there. It got worse. This is because the centrally planned economy depleted vast amounts of capital in their desperate struggle to keep the economy moving and competitive with the west. > They say that most things were better, but acknowledge those that were worse, and when they say they'd support a return it's not to an identical state, just a similar one. But their political systems prevent this. One must wonder why. Cynically I could offer the same answer a communist would offer when asked why people weren't permitted to own factories in the Soviet Union: because that would put "the wrong people" in charge of the means of production. Less cynically, its not clear how a centrally planned economy would know how to correctly allocate resources, so there's no reason to return to the central planning model in the absence of a solution to the problems that caused it to fail in the first place.

shirakawasuna 6y ago
> The Cold War would be an answer That's not the answer, it's the mechanism of that violence. > unless you somehow deny that communists were equally dedicated to subverting and overthrowing the west. I will absolutely deny that. Note the number of capitalist governments coup'd by communists. Note the number of invasions and constant wars of The West. Look at Vietnam. Western involvement was long-reaching, direct, violent, and generally within other countries fighting grassroots revolutions / civil wars or throwing off colonial it imperial influence. When attempting to find similar situations started by communist countries, we find important differences. Dragged into conflicts on their borders. Literally fighting a genocide directed at themselves. Long-standing territorial disputes on their borders. > I disagree that this is a valid generalization Feudal backwaters subject to regular famines became superpowers that eliminated homelessness and hunger. And the fall of those systems corresponded to drops in QoL over and over and over again. What other tests would you want? > This is because the centrally planned economy depleted vast amounts of capital in their desperate struggle to keep the economy moving and competitive with the west. Capital is just stuff or money tradeable for stuff. The stuff didn't go away after color revolutions. But public programs were absolutely privatized or abolished by liberal capitalist governments in moves aligned with their ideologies - ideologies you can find throughout this site, in fact. > Cynically I could offer the same answer a communist would offer when asked why people weren't permitted to own factories in the Soviet Union: because that would put "the wrong people" in charge of the means of production. Ah, but in that case there's a consistent ideological position: bourgeois democracy and ownership must be curtailed because otherwise it will grow and eat you and those you love. According to liberal democracy, you're supposed to be able to seek and form a representative government in a multi-party setting - yet they restrict those parties to force bourgeois options to be the only ones available. The supposedly core ideals of The West clearly bow to capital when push comes to shove and one should question the propaganda that it's these ideals that won or were even the actual goal. > Less cynically, its not clear how a centrally planned economy would know how to correctly allocate resources, so there's no reason to return to the central planning model in the absence of a solution to the problems that caused it to fail in the first place. But the vast majority of several countries want that return, with support increasing with age - the people who actually lived under communist party rule. They are prevented from doing so by their political systems. It cannot be voted in. Democracy clearly doesn't mean that much to The West, right?

asdfman123 6y ago

I read a book that argued that the primary thing communism accomplished was smash horribly unjust feudal states and clear the way for liberal capitalist democracies. I'm still under the belief that too much centralized planning can severely hurt an economy but that organization is way better for the economy than everything being locked down by a narrow class of land owning elites.

LoSboccacc 6y ago

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-ppp-selected-countries-1900-2010-GK-international-US-dollars_fig2_309030226 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/GDP-per-capita-ppp-selec... even disregarding the other issues with communism, the central premise is wrong: it's quite apparent that what growth centralized economy countries enjoyed was far at a lower rate than free market counterparts, up until they opened up to private initiative.

kolinko 6y ago

I grew up in Socialist Poland. What you're saying is absurdly far away from reality. Very few people say that things were better. It was a miserable time back then, and the life has drastically improved for the vast majority of the society. When there was toilet paper delivered to the stores, it was a big deal. And by "toilet paper" I mean a gray, thin, one-layered, recycled one. It's weird we didn't switch to the asian water-bidet style then. There was literally nothing available in the stores. Imagine your local supermarket, but with literal empty shelves, just vinegar on some of them. There was even a joke about a guy who comes to a hardware store: - I'd like some screws - We don't have screws - I'd like some nails then - We don't have nails either - Well, what do you have? - Nothing. - Why don't you close the store down then? - We don't have the locks either. This was a reality for dosens of millions of people back then. Saying that anyone misses that time, and that many people had it better is some kind of a sick fantasy. Also, it wasn't due to US politics (although it didn't help). With the private enterprise being trashed, and people demotivated to do any sort of work (what for? "If you sit, or you stand, 100zł payment is your right" - another common joke), it was bound to collapse. If anything, people in Poland saw West world as the one that was fighting to get us out of it all (and as a place of freedom and possibility). And really - the crazy 90s after the communist rule fell, we saw a huge increase in the quality of life for almost everyone.