5 ms·

You’re describing social democracy, which was the post-war consensus. As we’ve seen, it decays over time because it is still subject to capitalism’s basic contr

by lucian1900 5y ago

You’re describing social democracy, which was the post-war consensus. As we’ve seen, it decays over time because it is still subject to capitalism’s basic contradictions. The tendency of the rate of profit to fall is not prevented by social democracy. A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists. Most of the actual problems were and are caused by being under constant siege by capitalist countries. Socialism is the process of the working class gaining state power and overthrowing the capitalist class. There will still be contradictions and problems, but with planning we at least have a chance to solve them. Leaving it up to markets or the dictatorship of a few capitalists is admitting defeat from the start.

arp242 5y ago
> A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists. Most of the actual problems were and are caused by being under constant siege by capitalist countries. The way I'm reading this is that the problems in Stalin Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North-Korea, etc. was/is caused by capitalist countries. And while these were "the worst of it", the practical implementations in many other countries wasn't exactly great either. I don't know of a single example where it worked well, and that's not for lack of trying. I'm not sure if this is what you meant. It would help being a bit more concrete.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  The Khmer Rouge weren’t communists, despite what they may have sometimes claimed. Being funded by the CIA is a useful hint. They were also stopped by socialist Vietnam, a second useful hint. The USSR was actually very successful, especially during Stalin’s time. It went from a semi-feudal country to defeating the Nazis and into space. Eventually it lost the Cold War to the capitalist countries, through infiltration and direct aggression. All of Eastern Europe was similarly quite successful compared to the conditions from which each country started. Merely ending the periodic environmental famines through industrialisation and collectivisation was a remarkable achievement. My grandparents and parents describe astonishing change in very few years and better conditions overall than today. China started from an even less developed stage and industrialised very quickly. The material condition of most workers improved greatly, despite the limits imposed by capitalist countries. Later on, other concessions were made so capitalists would no longer block trade and development. And yet the working class is still in control of the state, as we’ve seen during COVID when the state took more direct control of the economy to save lives at the expense of profits. The DPRK was bombed to an incredible degree by the US, which is still officially at war with it. Despite an almost complete blockade and even losing its socialist trading partners, it persists and to a small extent prospers. Cuba is in a similar position, doing remarkably well despite capitalist aggression. Vietnam also developed remarkably quickly, despite occupation and a devastating war. Like China, it made concessions to capitalists in order to develop, while workers retain state power as a class.
  - arp242 5y ago
    > The USSR was actually very successful, especially during Stalin’s time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet... Curious definition of "success". Guess that must all be "propaganda" too.
    - lucian1900 5y ago
      I’d recommend you at least look at the primary sources for such wild claims, very often they are questionable. The dominant system is clearly capitalism, so narratives that slander alternatives are encouraged. You could also talk to older people in Eastern Europe like I have, their experience doesn’t match such exaggerations.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists That’s...true, but not in the way you seem to intend it. The focus on regimes espousing Leninism and its descendants to typify “socialist countries” as opposed to those following what Marx described (and objected to, but Marx doesn't encompass socialism any more than Lenin does) as “bourgeois socialism” and “democratic socialism” is a pretty big problem, especially when dismissing Western socialist movements, which are mostly in those categories, not Leninism or its derivatives.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  And yet it’s the Marxist-Leninist revolutions that freed their peoples from imperial occupation and exploitation. Lenin expanded on Marx, but did not reject his work.

arp242 5y ago

> A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists. Most of the actual problems were and are caused by being under constant siege by capitalist countries. The way I'm reading this is that the problems in Stalin Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North-Korea, etc. was/is caused by capitalist countries. And while these were "the worst of it", the practical implementations in many other countries wasn't exactly great either. I don't know of a single example where it worked well, and that's not for lack of trying. I'm not sure if this is what you meant. It would help being a bit more concrete.

lucian1900 5y ago
The Khmer Rouge weren’t communists, despite what they may have sometimes claimed. Being funded by the CIA is a useful hint. They were also stopped by socialist Vietnam, a second useful hint. The USSR was actually very successful, especially during Stalin’s time. It went from a semi-feudal country to defeating the Nazis and into space. Eventually it lost the Cold War to the capitalist countries, through infiltration and direct aggression. All of Eastern Europe was similarly quite successful compared to the conditions from which each country started. Merely ending the periodic environmental famines through industrialisation and collectivisation was a remarkable achievement. My grandparents and parents describe astonishing change in very few years and better conditions overall than today. China started from an even less developed stage and industrialised very quickly. The material condition of most workers improved greatly, despite the limits imposed by capitalist countries. Later on, other concessions were made so capitalists would no longer block trade and development. And yet the working class is still in control of the state, as we’ve seen during COVID when the state took more direct control of the economy to save lives at the expense of profits. The DPRK was bombed to an incredible degree by the US, which is still officially at war with it. Despite an almost complete blockade and even losing its socialist trading partners, it persists and to a small extent prospers. Cuba is in a similar position, doing remarkably well despite capitalist aggression. Vietnam also developed remarkably quickly, despite occupation and a devastating war. Like China, it made concessions to capitalists in order to develop, while workers retain state power as a class.
- arp242 5y ago
  > The USSR was actually very successful, especially during Stalin’s time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet... Curious definition of "success". Guess that must all be "propaganda" too.
  - lucian1900 5y ago
    I’d recommend you at least look at the primary sources for such wild claims, very often they are questionable. The dominant system is clearly capitalism, so narratives that slander alternatives are encouraged. You could also talk to older people in Eastern Europe like I have, their experience doesn’t match such exaggerations.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> A lot of what is commonly believed about socialist countries is in fact propaganda by capitalists That’s...true, but not in the way you seem to intend it. The focus on regimes espousing Leninism and its descendants to typify “socialist countries” as opposed to those following what Marx described (and objected to, but Marx doesn't encompass socialism any more than Lenin does) as “bourgeois socialism” and “democratic socialism” is a pretty big problem, especially when dismissing Western socialist movements, which are mostly in those categories, not Leninism or its derivatives.

lucian1900 5y ago
And yet it’s the Marxist-Leninist revolutions that freed their peoples from imperial occupation and exploitation. Lenin expanded on Marx, but did not reject his work.