3 ms·

Russia is a fantastic example. I don't expect you to be intimately familiar with Russian politik 1990-2007, but the US is currently speedrunning the same trajec

Russia is a fantastic example. I don't expect you to be intimately familiar with Russian politik 1990-2007, but the US is currently speedrunning the same trajectory, for instance. China is a perfect example as well. Serbia also comes to mind fairly quickly, and another poster mentioned Vietnam.... North Korea is defacto this as well if you squint past their propaganda even a tiny bit, with the addendum that Kim is the ultimate oligarch.

bmitc 2y ago
Thank you for the examples. What is the alternative path and how should countries stay socialist? Are European countries not primarily socialist republics?
- slackfan 2y ago
  Why should they stay socialist? Why should they ever be socialist in the first place, when this is the outcome? Why should nations even exist when all they do is murder people?
  - dartos 2y ago
    > Why should nations even exist when all they do is murder people? This is a bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think? Kind of a room temperature take.
    - slackfan 2y ago
      Not a take, just a question for the folx to think about. Furthermore, if the only counter argument that can be made is an appeal to authority and prevailing views, or require an ad-hominem attack, then which one is the room temperature take, eh?
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    In the absence of countries, do you think less people get murdered, or more? Yes, countries murder people. They also try to see to it that other people don't murder people. (The "monopoly on violence", and all that.) You seem to be assuming that it's worse with the existence of countries. I regard that as not proven, and even as unlikely.
    - slackfan 2y ago
      Colonial any country here, nazi getmany, soviet russia, any number of african genocides, bosnian genocide... should I keep going?
- solardev 2y ago
  I think the European countries are more "capitalist with benefits" than "socialist". They have strong governments and better protections for the lower classes, different campaign financing methods (which influences who can run and win), stronger regulatory bodies, sensible welfare programs, nationalized healthcare, etc. But they're still fundamentally capitalist. Their revenue comes from the taxation of capitalist ventures. Very few of the means of production are owned by the people or state. They just do a better job of skimming off that top and putting it to social use. A lot of East Asia is like that too. The social democracies in Nordic countries are a bit different though, with Norway's state owning or partially owning some of the enterprises that drive their GDP. But there is still private ownership there. The US by contrast prefers to let the rich keep their money at the expense of everyone else. And they use some of it to buy off the political class, so there's no incentive for the politicians to change the system, especially when both major parties are corrupt and conspire against third parties gaining power.

bmitc 2y ago

Thank you for the examples. What is the alternative path and how should countries stay socialist? Are European countries not primarily socialist republics?

slackfan 2y ago
Why should they stay socialist? Why should they ever be socialist in the first place, when this is the outcome? Why should nations even exist when all they do is murder people?
- dartos 2y ago
  > Why should nations even exist when all they do is murder people? This is a bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think? Kind of a room temperature take.
  - slackfan 2y ago
    Not a take, just a question for the folx to think about. Furthermore, if the only counter argument that can be made is an appeal to authority and prevailing views, or require an ad-hominem attack, then which one is the room temperature take, eh?
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  In the absence of countries, do you think less people get murdered, or more? Yes, countries murder people. They also try to see to it that other people don't murder people. (The "monopoly on violence", and all that.) You seem to be assuming that it's worse with the existence of countries. I regard that as not proven, and even as unlikely.
  - slackfan 2y ago
    Colonial any country here, nazi getmany, soviet russia, any number of african genocides, bosnian genocide... should I keep going?
solardev 2y ago
I think the European countries are more "capitalist with benefits" than "socialist". They have strong governments and better protections for the lower classes, different campaign financing methods (which influences who can run and win), stronger regulatory bodies, sensible welfare programs, nationalized healthcare, etc. But they're still fundamentally capitalist. Their revenue comes from the taxation of capitalist ventures. Very few of the means of production are owned by the people or state. They just do a better job of skimming off that top and putting it to social use. A lot of East Asia is like that too. The social democracies in Nordic countries are a bit different though, with Norway's state owning or partially owning some of the enterprises that drive their GDP. But there is still private ownership there. The US by contrast prefers to let the rich keep their money at the expense of everyone else. And they use some of it to buy off the political class, so there's no incentive for the politicians to change the system, especially when both major parties are corrupt and conspire against third parties gaining power.