422
We can all agree on that, right?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
422 points (91.5% liked)
Memes
45185 readers
1471 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you have any example of working socialism?
You are making the extraordinary claim, that despite socialism being used throughout the world, it simply doesn't work. Therefore the onus of proof is on you. So, can you please describe why socialism doesn't work?
Where. Give me an example of a socialist country
China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos are all examples of socialist countries today. China alone lifted over 800 million people out of poverty in recent decades. Compare that to the capitalist paradise in India.
China is a terrible example of a socialist economy, and the others are still mired by poverty. One could claim that is due to capitalist sabotage, but I don't think it does socialism any favors to use them as success stories.
China is in fact an excellent example of a socialist country. Here's a detailed explanation for you that's well sourced and referenced https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7Th2aV0wM
I'm going to level with you, I don't have time to watch an hour long video for a topic that is likely just government-approved talking points.
In practice, I just don't see any difference in the way the mega rich in China control society, just as they do in the rest of the western world. There is too much aesthetic reverence for the West in the upper eschelons of Chinese society.
It is just as dystopic as the West with the way workers are used as fodder by megacorps with no regard for their well-being. Any country with such widespread income inequality cannot call itself a socialist success story.
You used a lot of words to say that you don't actually know anything about China and are unwilling to educate yourself. I guess just keep on believing your chauvinist fantasies about a country you know nothing about.
My man, I lived in China. You don't have to sell me this bullshit.
Ah yes good old trust me bro, but even if you did it's pretty clear that plenty of people living in China disagree with you. Plenty of people live in US and can't define what capitalism or socialism is either. What makes you an authority?
You're right. A lot of people in China would probably disagree with me. But a lot of people in China lack the basic critical thinking skills to even question their circumstances, because secondary schools (if you even have the means to attend one) don't like students who ask too many questions.
A lot of people in the US would also disagree with me politically, because they think they were chosen by Jesus to oppress brown people and spread glorious capitalism around the world. But that doesn't make them right either.
I am a Marxist. I've done my homework. What do you want me to do, start quoting Zizek or Gramsci to pass your shitty litmus test?
China is an experiment in socialism gone awry, because like the rest of the world, those with power lust over capital. I lived in a T3 city in China where things were relatively quiet, but flew out to visit a friend way down in Shenzhen periodically. It's hard to see billionaire kids racing their Ferraris down the street there while the poor masses look down from the windows of their destitute coffin house apartments and think that this is somehow a socialist success story.
China is as capital-driven as any other world power. The government just likes to participate in it a bit more directly.
But sure, you're the expert, not me, so I'm sure this is all just capitalist propaganda intended to denounce great Mao zhuxi and sabotage the workers' revolution.
That's some racist shit buddy. People in China lack basic critical skills to question their circumstances, it takes a white savior to tell them what's up. Do you even listen to yourself? You'd not a Marxist, you're a racist.
If that's how you choose to read into my comment, there's no helping you.
Why would you even assume I'm white? Do you think I just moved to China on a whim? All Chinese people have to be born in China and nowhere else?
Fuck this.
There is no other way to read your comment. You're claiming that you understand China better than people who actually live there while claiming they lack "critical thinking skills" that evidently you believe yourself to possess. If you can't understand how unhinged that sounds what else is there to tell you.
Why would I assume that you're white? Because that's the typical narrative white American and European racists use, and if you're not white and you've internalized this narrative then there is truly no helping you.
Fuck this indeed.
I love all of the irony: Person 1: Americans don't question nor understand their system Person 2: Chinese don't question nor understand their system Person 1: WTF? Why you so racist?
Americans don't understand their system, but it's pretty clear that they do question it given the political tension, and increasing amounts of riots that we currently see in US. These are the direct result of people being discontent with the direction their lives are taking under the US capitalist system. No amount of propaganda can trick people into thinking the system works for them when they see their lives suck.
On the other hand, vast majority of people in China support their government because they've seen their lives improve dramatically with each and every decade. That's the tangible material difference between the two systems.
Does countries of Nordic model count? I heard good things about them.
Not really, Nordic model is capitalist because the capital owning class owns the means of production and holds power in society. Nordic model has generous social services and a social safety net, but that of itself does not make it socialist. A socialist model implies that it is the working class that holds power and that means of production are under a mix of public and cooperative ownership. This is the model that all western countries fight against.
Thank you, this does makes sense!
You previously mentioned China. And China do have big companies like NetEase. Are such companies under a mix of public and cooperative ownershiprs? How it differs from IKEA? Not arguing, just trying to understand.
The difference with China is that capitalists don't run the government and all the core economy is publicly owned. I can highly recommend this book discussing why China is fundamentally socialist
https://redletterspp.com/products/the-east-is-still-red
This was an excellent discussion on the subject as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT7Th2aV0wM
I find that comparing how China and India developed after WW2 is illustrative as well. India took the capitalist route while China remained socialist, and the difference today is stark. India has incredible amount of poverty and the situation continues to get worse, meanwhile China is responsible for the biggest poverty elimination programs in the world. The fact that China is developing differently from capitalist nations is a good indicator that something different is happening there.
Will take a look, thank you!
I'm learning the material and I have a few questions.
You say that in China the capitalists do not run the government. But how do you know that they do not have their own business or are not affiliated with the capitalists? For example, in my country there is a law that does not allow deputies and the president to have their own business. But it does not work, these people simply register the business for other persons and, in fact, continue to own the business.
How China got out of poverty is amazing. But I also heard that the workers were very heavily exploited. This is one of the reasons why the US moved production there. And even now, workers in China are paid little despite the fact that the country is rich. How can this happen in a socialist country that should protect the interests of the workers?
As for the Nordic model, you said that it is not exactly socialism: it is capitalism, but with tough rules for business and good social programs. So they more centric then leftists really. And I don't argue with that. But I don't understand why if the capitalists run the country, they simply won't loosen laws to make business easier and reduce social programs? How has this system not collapsed yet?
Sorry if some of the questions seem stupid, I'm just trying to how this all works.
As I pointed out, we can look at the tangible outcomes in China such as poverty reduction programs that simply aren't happening in countries where capitalists are in charge. So, we don't have to take their word for it, we can just look at the outcomes.
It's also worth noting that 87.6% of young Chinese identify with Marxism, and the party has 95 million members. People in China learn about communism in school, and I think it's reasonable to assume that a country where vast majority of young people identify as Marxist, would have a genuine communist government in charge.
Another indicator we can look at is that China doesn't suffer from regular crashes seen under capitalism. An inherent contradiction within capitalism is that the capitalists always want to cut pay for their employees to minimize the costs, while they also require consumers with enough spending power to consume the commodities they produce. This is why capitalism results in regular economic crashes when wages fall below the point where consumption can keep up with the rate of commodity production. At that point you end up with overproduction and a crash. If China was capitalist then it should be experiencing these kinds of crashes regularly just like actual capitalist nations are in the Western world.
Working conditions and wages in China are improving rapidly. Real wage (i.e. the wage adjusted for the prices you pay) has gone up 4x in the past 25 years, more than any other country. This is staggering considering it's the most populous country on the planet. Social mobility in China is actually higher than it is in US.
Another example of the difference in China is that it massively invests in infrastructure. They used more concrete in 3 years than US in all of 20th century, they built 27,000km of high speed rail in a decade. This is another thing we don't see happening under capitalism because capitalists don't see significant profit from infrastructure investments. This is the main reason US infrastructure is currently crumbling.
Finally, 90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. This sort of home ownership is not seen in capitalist countries where housing has become a commodity.
The reason capitalists run the countries even under Nodric model is because they are able to use their wealth to create disproportionate influence on the society. Capitalists own the media, provide funding for political campaigns, and so on. This allows capitalists to run a propaganda campaign against the population of the country. A couple of excellent books on the subject are Inventing Reality and Manufacturing Consent.
And in fact, we do see this system erode over time. Here's a discussion of what happened in Sweden since the 70s and how capitalists have been eroding social programs there https://jacobin.com/2019/08/sweden-1970s-democratic-socialism-olof-palme-lo
Interesting, thank you! I'm a little jealous of our Asian brothers. I wish we could have a similar country, but with more western culture.
I think if the west ever becomes socialist then the type of socialism we'll see will necessarily be rooted in western culture and it's going to be its own unique flavor. Even China says that their system is a product of their own conditions and history, it's not a model that can be franchised to other countries directly. And Chinese model is far from perfect, so it's worth looking at both the good and the bad to learn and improve upon what works there while avoiding the negative aspects.
Every single socialist country is an example of working socialism having lifted millions of people out of poverty, provided them with, food, housing education, and jobs. Meanwhile, we're still looking for examples of working capitalism where majority of the population is not being exploited for the benefit of the capital owning oligarchy.
"Lifted millions out of poverty"
Some people were effectevelly not much different from slaves up until 1970 as they had no passport, worked for food (oh, sorry, for workdays, which is even worse) and required permission to move from kolhoz. Ah tankies never change.
All what communists did for citizens is: lost the election, overturned it with force and forced millions of people back to medieval society with fancy goals.
NoT MuCh DifFeReNT FrOm SlaVes. Should really read up on what actual serfdom was like before the revolution instead of making a clown of yourself in public.
Wow. Read the rest of the thread because I'm not gonna rewrite stuff.
But as I was saying. I live in post communist country and the influence of socialism was extraordinarily destructive and I can see damage made from it to these days.
I grew up in USSR, and I lived through the collapse of USSR. It was one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in history. People who are cheering that on are the ones who benefit from all the exploitation under capitalism today. People who got theirs and don't care about anything else. Deplorable.
Only a small percentage of socialists (albeit larger in this instance) hold the USSR up as anything but an example of an early, ham-fisted attempt at socialism with a lot of mistakes. If there have been no places socialism has worked yet (debatable, but I’ll argue from this position), that disproves nothing. The first several hundred tries at the lightbulb were probably failures, too, but capitalists talk about that failure as a side effect of innovation without realizing that social systems might need innovation too. I’m sorry if you suffered under an authoritarian socialist government; there’s nothing inherent about the connection between those two characteristics. But authoritarian governments tend to survive better against the kinds of conspiracies and attacks established capitalist governments launch against socialist ones, so you get to see what’s left. (If you don’t know about this, go to a library, start with…maybe Allende in ‘73…It’s very well-documented.). In sum, it has nothing to do with not caring about people harmed by authoritarianism. It has to do with seeing the evils of the system around us and refusing to accept that this is the best humanity can do. I’m sorry you can’t see that. But I’m not letting my friends’ access to insulin sit in the greedy hands of insurance companies without a fight. I’m not living in a pay-to-play political system where donors’ interests matter more than voters’ my whole life if I have anything to say about it. Regardless of your beliefs.
I think perhaps you meant to reply to the parent comment, I certainly did not suffer in USSR and the dissolution of USSR was a great tragedy in my view.
USSR obviously wasn't the ideal of socialism. In fact, it would be pretty surprising if the first ever attempt at building a socialist society didn't have problems. Obviously we can learn from USSR and do better going forward. However, I do think that despite all its problems, USSR did manage to achieve many positive outcomes for the majority of the people. It provided everyone with education, housing, healthcare, jobs, and all the necessities of life. This was done despite USSR having been under duress during its whole existence and it's something that current capitalist regimes are unable to achieve.
Some of the richest countries in the world have a socialist framework in place lol. Norway, Switzerland, The Netherlands etc. You have no idea what you're talking about.
That's not socialism. That's socdem. And it's still capitalism
Oh you're moving the goal post.
No that really isn't socialism.
Socialist policies aren't socialist? You're either trolling or retarded.
They are not socialist policies. No need to be an ableist prick, mate. Socialism does not mean government doing stuff. It means workers owning the means of production.
Retard it is then
None of those countries are socialist.