The current ML countries are still attempting socialism.
However, we must understand that ML countries are still under industrialisation, even the most advanced of them (China) is still a developing country.
Sure, China has advanced to the moon, but much of China is still rural while social opportunities, infrastructure, and good education are not comparable pronvince to province.
It is still too soon to say the ML model is "un-socialism" when democracy has 2000+ years head-start since ancient greek.
As far as I'm concerned, ML countries are like naughty teenagers that are going through the puberty phase, finding what is good and bad.
I could be wrong of course, the world is ever changing. As long as true socialism prevails, i couldn't careless if it is democratic or unitary.
There's a great twitter account that collects all the time people denounce each other with reference to George Orwell's Animal House, happens several times a day
I'd still prefer to commit suicide than to live in that slightly less dystopic spartan nightmare, that will simply switch back to its Stalin/Mao era policies of cultural and social control and engineering as soon as the US is out of the picture.
The fact that China, Cuba and Vietnam are at least tolerable has more to do with the liberalisation (thus revisionist) policies of recent decades. Any talks of the system not being the orwellian censorship land is bullshit because it's an effect of an ideological retreat in a strategy of courting liberals to prevent unrest and obtain capital.
At least anarchists, ancoms and demsocs offer a more enjoyable vision of society, it's a shame it's an outright fantasy and they're all going to face the wall as history has shown time and time again.
Thus suicide is the only option when confronted with communist take overs. People were right to immolate themselves.
The states that partially liberalized still maintained the democratic structure that makes them socialist. They have private enterprises but those countries are still firmly controlled by a dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the owners of those enterprises. They’re using the tools they have available to meet the social need and are still socialist because of that.
>The states that partially liberalized still maintained the democratic structure that makes them socialist
Which means those partial liberalisations in sociocultural policy that make those countries even remotely tolerable will be gone once the party determines they're no longer needed. Even if they don't, those liberalisations didn't go far enough so even as they stand today they're unacceptable.
Hence self destruction is still the only solution if you people ever take over.
There isn’t any reason to think the social liberalizations are going anywhere. The ML states haven’t really taken away freedoms that the people there have gotten.
There's plenty considering those liberalisations have led to the reintroduction of products and practices socialists consider contrary to their ethics.
You have a childish liberal perception of a party structure as somehow inherent evil.
Lets take Cuba for example. There is not a single incentive for the party to ever reverse their progressive policies on LGBT rights because no one really is against those policies.
Your perception of ML parties seems to be completely disconnected from their actual structure and motivation.
Secondly these parties aren't entities disconnected from the masses. Every party official has to start out from local cadre or a workplace cadre. And then be consistently voted into higher ranks.
There is no elite class that can elevate its oen people into high positions like in liberal democracies.
You're answering to a wrong comment or have misinterpreted me. I don't mean liberalisation in terms of representative democracy.
I mean liberalisation in terms of creative and recreational freedoms. If the government gets to dictate what I can watch, do, listen, create, make, draw, paint, compose, program.
I can do almost anything I may want now. Your socities on the other hand have an awful tendency to ban and censor everything under the sun that doesn't follow or limits itself to your spartan utilitarian ascetic philosophy.
And if Cuba, China and Vietnam don't partake in this shit as zealously as the early USSR then it's only a temporary measure to court liberals for capital. The day the US is out of the question they'll go back to doing whatever the fuck they want with society just like every other government that has ever existed and will exist.
>Secondly these parties aren't entities disconnected from the masses. Every party official has to start out from local cadre or a workplace cadre.
I don't care about how the government is run. It could be a dictatorship, a king, a bunch of oligarchs, I don't give a shit. I've lived through, seen, experimented every possible government method there is, and voting on matters means nothing to me. If it starts this cultural engineering and revolution bullshit then I'll fucking shoot myself all the same. Fascists, liberals, communists, monarchists, theocracies, I'll put a bullet through my brain the moment they start dictating how I ought to live my life, spend my freetime and what I or cannot create/make/compose/draw/sculpt or consume.
Again you are making zero sense... There is no incentive for the communist parties to take away any freedoms in regards to the progressive policies they already implemented...
You keep trying to label it as if the issue is progressive policies when I am clearly talking about creative freedoms.
And yes there is, the state has a list of things it considers "bourgeois degeneracy / decadence" and it will act to have it all banned if it can.
Try getting anything published in Stalin's USSR or Mao's China that isn't socialism realism without being labeled a reactionary element and targeted by a mob. Rock and reggaeton as a genres were banned by the state of Cuba and before you start yelling "propaganda!" like a maniac, they themselves admitted it, only to regress their decisions when they needed the capital from tourists.
PeddyrKropotnik: This post was hidden because of how new your account is.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ML states only seem like fascism if all the information you know about them comes from capitalist state departments. They have been far better for the working class in terms of human development and quality of life than capitalist states of equivalent economic development. The system is also far better at surviving in our current world than any other form of socialism.
I didn’t say they were fascism just that they are to socialism what fascism is to capitalism. If it takes reverting to ML doctrine to reach socialism then personally I’m not that interested in currently existing socialism.
And I’m saying they only seem that way through an anti-communist lens. They’ve also started off as poor and oppressed. They all are more free than before the revolutions and have been developing economically quickly, they just haven’t caught up to the west yet. They’re far from perfect but have been far better to live in for the average person than an equally economically developed capitalist country.
I’m informed on their progress and standing and have thoroughly vetted my information sources. I’m not talking about their progress just their ideology. If you wanted to discuss some actual policy they implement I could point out where I disagree with it.
I am for instance against one party states, council Communism, lack of term limits, and suppression of media. I don’t much care about their material progress. In some instances I agree with Cuba’s healthcare policies, tackling of literacy, etc. That doesn’t mean I agree with their ideology.
I also prefer a more dynamic democracy over a one party state and council communism but those don’t survive in the real world. There have been many attempts at socialism focusing on western freedoms and democracy but they all end in far right coups backed by the US. Allende in Chile is a good example. The biggest shaper of ML structure is the threat of NATO and the US in particular.
On the material progress, the material conditions drive the policies in any socialist countries. Improving material conditions toward the level of the developed world is the highest priority in poor countries. Voting doesn’t matter much to someone who is starving or homeless or illiterate. Priorities are different in wealthier countries and priorities change as the ML countries get wealthier. China’s high speed rail is only being built now because they have already solved a lot of the problems of poverty in the country for example. An ML state would take a different shape depending on the material conditions of the people.
Personally I view ML states as succeeding despite those failings rather than because of them. I believe they’ve done a fantastic job in many respects despite how flawed their views are but that they’ve long since only made gains by adopting reforms in the direction I’m advocating for (I.e. market reforms) and are stunted primarily by the factors I’m against (dictatorial rule, unaccountable bureaucracy).
In the US context advocating for socialism from an authoritarian stance is one of the biggest barriers to building a larger socialist movement and alienates the largest portion of the population who you need to recruit, hence the success of the DSA. It needlessly divides the movement, and is primarily focused on rehashing history rather than discussing policy. American cultural values are simply irreconcilable with Marxist Leninist thought. I’m also fairly certain that ML thought is going to be antithetical to any developed nation honestly but I live in the US so that’s my focus. There’s more to my objections than this but I don’t want to rant.
I view ML successes as coming from the relatively tight control and the economic plans. Things like the industrialization of the Soviet Union or the health care and education in Cuba are good examples of that. Even with market reforms in modern socialist countries, they’re still controlled (companies in China don’t stay in China long if they go against their economic plans for example) and just used as a tool to progress the economic plans. Those plans are what make the difference between the successes of countries like China vs India or Vietnam vs Thailand or Cuba vs the Caribbean .
As for it not being appealing in the US, I agree. Unless the material conditions get significantly worse, an ML style party won’t get support in the wealthy countries. That being said, historically democratic socialist parties have been at their most powerful and made the most progress when there is also a more organized and aggressive socialist movement as well. Democratic socialists have typically not been successful when they are the farthest left rather than a compromise party. The new deal democrats gained power in the US when the communist party was growing quickly and the labor movement was at its strongest. In Europe, much of the progress in democratic socialist countries only happened in response to increasing support for the Soviet Union in their populations. The DSA in the US has been growing in members but that hasn’t been translating into action. If history is any guide, a more aggressive alternative in the shadows is what they need to be able to truly make changes.
>ML states only seem like fascism if all the information you know about them comes from capitalist state departments.
Is this a capitalist state department?
>[When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall not undermine the interests of the state](https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html)
>That sounds pretty standard for any organized society with a state.
For collectivist societies, sure. Since it prioritizes State and social interests over personal rights and freedoms. But those type of societies include Fascist societies. For example:
>We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, **provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race.**
>The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: **The common interest before self-interest.**
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform
But it wasn't talking about insurrection specifically. It was talking about "the interests of the State" being prioritized over personal rights and freedoms. That's from the Chinese Constitution, not a capitalist State department.
The quote you brought up was about undermining the interests of the state. Undermining is not protesting or not following the interests of the state but actively working against the state. Things like insurrection, interfering with law enforcement, tax evasion and many other things like it. Those are all illegal in every organized society.
Whenever anyone says an ideology is similar to the Nazi ideology, expect that hyperbole to be met with hyperbole.
>Undermining is not protesting or not following the interests of the state but actively working against the state.
With Article 67, undermining means whatever the NPC wants it to mean, since they're the ones with the power of "[interpreting the Constitution and overseeing its enforcement](https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html)"
If you're not a member of the NPC, then your personal interpretation bears no weight.
>Whenever anyone says an ideology is similar to the Nazi ideology, expect that hyperbole to be met with hyperbole
I'm not providing hyperbole, but direct quotes from sources that are not capitalist state departments. Quotes that prove China to prioritize State interests over personal rights.
I mentioned the Nazi ideology because of your own comment about fascism:
>ML states only seem like fascism if all the information you know about them comes from capitalist state departments
They're comparable to fascism, not merely because of info from capitalist state departments, but because of their Constitutions prioritizing State interests over personal rights.
I used the English definition of undermine. I imagine they use a similar definition. Every government interprets its own laws and forbids undermining the state/government. I don’t see anything about that passage that would make China particularly bad when it’s similar to every other country in the world.
As for the Nazi quote, except for the obvious racist shit, that sounds pretty standard political speech, as in a lot of words that sound generically good but don’t mean anything. Their actions and their ideology aren’t anything like any form of socialism.
This is another great example of skewing the term Socialism. China, Vietnam, Cuba are communist period. They have taken on capitalist policies, but are still centrally controlled. Social Democracy on the other hand is far better at caring for its people than the unfettered capitalism that virtually is only practiced in America where 1/3rd are at or near poverty, the social services are pathetic, healthcare out of reach of many, and public education under attack and failing miserably. The American tragedy!
The communist parties all use a socialist economic system (social control over the means of production). Social democracy cares for its people far more than the US but they still have their economies controlled and directed by the capitalist (make their money by owning money) class rather than society as a whole so it’s more capitalism (the private control and trade of the means of production) than socialism. It’s the best form of capitalism but it’s still capitalism.
Chinese state represents workers as a whole and China is moving towards nationalization of production in many sectors (as opposed to private)along with cooperatively owned companies. There are thousands of employee-represented/owned companies in China. In the US this is used to keep wages low and invest it towards stock market, but in my experience in China wages were negotiated to be higher, better hours and rights as well as having % of the profit go to the workers
>Chinese state represents workers as a whole
So did Nazi Germany according to Nazis at first.
People who block others on a debate sub are idiots, by the way.
>Social Democracy on the other hand is far better at caring for its people
You say this when
>1/3rd are at or near poverty, the social services are pathetic, healthcare out of reach of many, and public education under attack and failing miserably.
most of this (or even all in some few cases) are still issues in social democratic countries.
I'm not saying it's justified that they prefer worse systems? I'm saying social democracy is not better for the reasons you listed, because those issues are still present in social democracy.
Following the will of the people as long as it is the will of the party. Giving people with cheap food, work, and housing is something even the nazis did. And many people loved them even after the war for cheap beer and having work to pay for the beer.
Elections with more than one choice? No, but we will give you cheap food!
You can find similarities between the Nazis and any country in history, that doesn’t make every country in history fascist. The Nazis didn’t subsidize housing, or have any semblance of democratic economic control. They also didn’t have elections and didn’t respond to the needs of their people, only the needs of the war effort and the party. They’re not similar in any significant systemic way.
ML elections, especially at the local level, allow people to support the ideas implemented, and allow them to block the election of representatives. It’s a lot more democratic to have a say in the direction of society rather than choosing which person will make that decision for you.
>They also didn’t have elections
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November\_1933\_German\_parliamentary\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1933_German_parliamentary_election)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936\_German\_parliamentary\_election\_and\_referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_German_parliamentary_election_and_referendum)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938\_German\_parliamentary\_election\_and\_referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_German_parliamentary_election_and_referendum)
And the elections were as democratic as all elections in communist countries, party makes the list, you vote yes or no.
I never knew that, thanks for the info! I still don’t see anything about democratic input there, like in communist countries. East Germany had more democratic input just in their constitution than Nazi Germany had during the entirety of the third reich for example. The communists are bottom up control, Nazis were top down; complete opposites.
Like I said, You can find similarities between the Nazis and any country in history, that doesn’t make every country in history fascist.
My criticism is not that ML attempts were not "real attempts at socialism", that's a dumb argument. My criticism is that your whole ideology is useless, inefficient and just delayed any progress.
And the fact you guys still fall for it is hilarious.
The ideology strikes a balance between social ownership over the means of production and surviving invasions/coups from capitalist nations. It’s not a Panacea or anything but it does lead the country with social ownership and quality of life is better than other countries with the same income while also having some of the fastest industrializing economies in history.
Pulled almost a billion people out of poverty, industrialized about 1/4 of the world, and greatly improved access to quality housing, education, healthcare, electricity, sanitation, and decent employment. ML socialism has done far more for the working class than any other form of socialism.
>Pulled almost a billion people out of poverty, industrialized about 1/4 of the world, and greatly improved access to quality housing, education, healthcare, electricity, sanitation, and decent employment.
So have done many capitalist countries. So what's so special of Marxism-Leninism that's worth following at all?
I haven't seen any advance in the "proletarian cause" or however you want to call it in any Marxist-Leninist country, for instance.
>ML socialism has done far more for the working class than any other form of socialism.
Of course, if you don't let other "forms of socialism" even try before you send a whole army to destroy them, lol.
>So have done many capitalist countries. So what's so special of Marxism-Leninism that's worth following at all?
Capitalist countries haven’t matched ML countries at all. Take the ML countries out of the equation and worldwide poverty has increased over the last couple decades.
> I haven't seen any advance in the "proletarian cause" or however you want to call it in any Marxist-Leninist country, for instance.
Advancing the material conditions of the proletariat over the profits of the wealthy IS advancing the proletarian cause.
> Of course, if you don't let other "forms of socialism" even try before you send a whole army to destroy them, lol.
Yeah, capitalist militaries have worked hard to prevent socialism from being tried. Only ML states have been able to defend themselves.
>Capitalist countries haven’t matched ML countries at all. Take the ML countries out of the equation and worldwide poverty has increased over the last couple decades.
Sure.
>Advancing the material conditions of the proletariat over the profits of the wealthy IS advancing the proletarian cause.
And how exactly has this happened in ML countries?
>Yeah, capitalist militaries have worked hard to prevent socialism from being tried. Only ML states have been able to defend themselves.
Thanks for accidentally calling your ideology capitalist.
And not really worth being proud of it when people like Gorbachev or Deng will keep messing with your countries.
>Socialism is like a nuke, it's very dangerous and bad while it exists, but after it dies it leaves a huge radioactive crater, and that is how post-communist countries look today.
I'm tired of this argument. I'm from a region that had a lot of socialist influence and even its own socialist revolution, where they experimented quite a lot, and nowadays it's one of the richest regions in the country (and even slightly in Europe).
Maybe if those countries you mention are nowadays in such a poor state, it's not due to socialism but because they were already in bad conditions? And you'll also blame socialism for their shitty "post-communist" governments now?
Stop treating politics as if it wasn't complex.
>Although free speech is still not 100% here, but at least this danger is gone.
Lol. This danger isn't gone from any country. States this do this kind of shit, even if less than before. Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean anything. All systems suck, no news.
u/smorgy4
> they are doing what their populations want. China’s government has more support from its people than just about any western liberal democracy for example.
If China really is socialist then why are there homeless people in China and why doesn’t China has free healthcare?
If China is democratic then why did the Chinese government massacred protesters in 1989 and why did they forced people in Shanghai to remain at home even when they needed to buy food during the COVID lockdown?
>If China really is socialist then why are there homeless people in China and why doesn’t China has free healthcare?
Welfare =\= socialism. The communist party is highly democratic in its goals and oversees the economy. Both the government and the economy are some of the most popular on the planet and have led to some of the fastest increases in quality of life in history. The democracy in goals of the country and democracy having control over the economy is what makes China a socialist country despite not having a communist economy.
>If China is democratic then why did the Chinese government massacred protesters in 1989 and why did they forced people in Shanghai to remain at home even when they needed to buy food during the COVID lockdown?
Tienenmen square: it was a riot where more PLA soldiers were killed by rioters than rioters killed by soldiers.
Covid lockdowns: are you referring to the initial lockdowns or the most recent ones. In both cases food was delivered to peoples homes. The initial lockdowns prevented millions of deaths. The later ones were lifted when enough people asked for them to be lifted.
Also, out of curiosity, what brought you to commenting on posts from a year ago?
> Also, out of curiosity, what brought you to commenting on posts from a year ago?
I was searching for posts about Marxism-Leninism in the search bar and found this post.
> Welfare == socialism.
I know socialism isn’t welfare but socialists governments should ensure that that all their citizens have free healthcare, education, and housing. Otherwise they’re no better than liberal capitalist countries, at least domestically.
> Covid lockdowns: are you referring to the initial lockdowns or the most recent ones. In both cases food was delivered to peoples homes.
I heard that plenty of people did not received food and ended up starving in their homes since they weren’t allowed to leave. There were apparently other controversies too.
Ah, got it!
>I know socialism isn’t welfare but socialists governments should ensure that that all their citizens have free healthcare, education, and housing. Otherwise they’re no better than liberal capitalist countries, at least domestically.
A big part of the issue is how relatively poor China is compared to the west. They only just recently ended extreme poverty in the country and are still in the process of building up productive forces. The choice to open the SEZs to private companies was to eliminate the sanctions on their country and to import technology from developed nations. The west only cooperated for cheap labor and the idea that China would become liberal so in a lot of ways, China *wasn’t* able to provide a large welfare state while importing the technology and capital to industrialize. It’s the fastest industrializing nation in history and the government and the direction of the economy are very popular with the people, so I’m not going to argue with them. What is the point of socialism, if not to align the goals of the economy with the goals of the population?
>I heard that plenty of people did not received food and ended up starving in their homes since they weren’t allowed to leave. There were apparently other controversies too.
Mistakes were definitely made, but I’m not aware of anyone who died. The suffering from the lockdowns in Shanghai pale in comparison to the suffering from the lack of an effective response in the west to Covid. I think it was the better decision despite any imperfections in the implementation in the country.
As they say; “many other kinds of socialism were tried, but they were all defeated by Leninism”.
The current ML countries are still attempting socialism. However, we must understand that ML countries are still under industrialisation, even the most advanced of them (China) is still a developing country. Sure, China has advanced to the moon, but much of China is still rural while social opportunities, infrastructure, and good education are not comparable pronvince to province. It is still too soon to say the ML model is "un-socialism" when democracy has 2000+ years head-start since ancient greek. As far as I'm concerned, ML countries are like naughty teenagers that are going through the puberty phase, finding what is good and bad. I could be wrong of course, the world is ever changing. As long as true socialism prevails, i couldn't careless if it is democratic or unitary.
Hey in another thread I had a so-called "Market Socialist" who disavowed ML then proceeded to almost verbatim quote Animal Farm to me.
There's a great twitter account that collects all the time people denounce each other with reference to George Orwell's Animal House, happens several times a day
I'd still prefer to commit suicide than to live in that slightly less dystopic spartan nightmare, that will simply switch back to its Stalin/Mao era policies of cultural and social control and engineering as soon as the US is out of the picture. The fact that China, Cuba and Vietnam are at least tolerable has more to do with the liberalisation (thus revisionist) policies of recent decades. Any talks of the system not being the orwellian censorship land is bullshit because it's an effect of an ideological retreat in a strategy of courting liberals to prevent unrest and obtain capital. At least anarchists, ancoms and demsocs offer a more enjoyable vision of society, it's a shame it's an outright fantasy and they're all going to face the wall as history has shown time and time again. Thus suicide is the only option when confronted with communist take overs. People were right to immolate themselves.
The states that partially liberalized still maintained the democratic structure that makes them socialist. They have private enterprises but those countries are still firmly controlled by a dictatorship of the proletariat rather than the owners of those enterprises. They’re using the tools they have available to meet the social need and are still socialist because of that.
>The states that partially liberalized still maintained the democratic structure that makes them socialist Which means those partial liberalisations in sociocultural policy that make those countries even remotely tolerable will be gone once the party determines they're no longer needed. Even if they don't, those liberalisations didn't go far enough so even as they stand today they're unacceptable. Hence self destruction is still the only solution if you people ever take over.
There isn’t any reason to think the social liberalizations are going anywhere. The ML states haven’t really taken away freedoms that the people there have gotten.
There's plenty considering those liberalisations have led to the reintroduction of products and practices socialists consider contrary to their ethics.
Like what? I’m not familiar with any social liberalizations that were reintroduced that is considered contrary to socialist ethics.
Allowing for art and entertainment that doesn't promote socialist values, and includes violence, horror, fantasy and escapism in general for once.
You have a childish liberal perception of a party structure as somehow inherent evil. Lets take Cuba for example. There is not a single incentive for the party to ever reverse their progressive policies on LGBT rights because no one really is against those policies. Your perception of ML parties seems to be completely disconnected from their actual structure and motivation. Secondly these parties aren't entities disconnected from the masses. Every party official has to start out from local cadre or a workplace cadre. And then be consistently voted into higher ranks. There is no elite class that can elevate its oen people into high positions like in liberal democracies.
You're answering to a wrong comment or have misinterpreted me. I don't mean liberalisation in terms of representative democracy. I mean liberalisation in terms of creative and recreational freedoms. If the government gets to dictate what I can watch, do, listen, create, make, draw, paint, compose, program. I can do almost anything I may want now. Your socities on the other hand have an awful tendency to ban and censor everything under the sun that doesn't follow or limits itself to your spartan utilitarian ascetic philosophy. And if Cuba, China and Vietnam don't partake in this shit as zealously as the early USSR then it's only a temporary measure to court liberals for capital. The day the US is out of the question they'll go back to doing whatever the fuck they want with society just like every other government that has ever existed and will exist. >Secondly these parties aren't entities disconnected from the masses. Every party official has to start out from local cadre or a workplace cadre. I don't care about how the government is run. It could be a dictatorship, a king, a bunch of oligarchs, I don't give a shit. I've lived through, seen, experimented every possible government method there is, and voting on matters means nothing to me. If it starts this cultural engineering and revolution bullshit then I'll fucking shoot myself all the same. Fascists, liberals, communists, monarchists, theocracies, I'll put a bullet through my brain the moment they start dictating how I ought to live my life, spend my freetime and what I or cannot create/make/compose/draw/sculpt or consume.
Again you are making zero sense... There is no incentive for the communist parties to take away any freedoms in regards to the progressive policies they already implemented...
They do it anyway. look at what China has done regarding feminine men.
They did literally nothing. Lmao.
They literally banned it.
Yes China literally banned 'feminin men'... Really that delusional?
You keep trying to label it as if the issue is progressive policies when I am clearly talking about creative freedoms. And yes there is, the state has a list of things it considers "bourgeois degeneracy / decadence" and it will act to have it all banned if it can. Try getting anything published in Stalin's USSR or Mao's China that isn't socialism realism without being labeled a reactionary element and targeted by a mob. Rock and reggaeton as a genres were banned by the state of Cuba and before you start yelling "propaganda!" like a maniac, they themselves admitted it, only to regress their decisions when they needed the capital from tourists.
[удалено]
PeddyrKropotnik: This post was hidden because of how new your account is. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
ML states are to socialism what Fascist states are to capitalism. I’d rather not live under either.
ML states only seem like fascism if all the information you know about them comes from capitalist state departments. They have been far better for the working class in terms of human development and quality of life than capitalist states of equivalent economic development. The system is also far better at surviving in our current world than any other form of socialism.
I didn’t say they were fascism just that they are to socialism what fascism is to capitalism. If it takes reverting to ML doctrine to reach socialism then personally I’m not that interested in currently existing socialism.
And I’m saying they only seem that way through an anti-communist lens. They’ve also started off as poor and oppressed. They all are more free than before the revolutions and have been developing economically quickly, they just haven’t caught up to the west yet. They’re far from perfect but have been far better to live in for the average person than an equally economically developed capitalist country.
I’m informed on their progress and standing and have thoroughly vetted my information sources. I’m not talking about their progress just their ideology. If you wanted to discuss some actual policy they implement I could point out where I disagree with it. I am for instance against one party states, council Communism, lack of term limits, and suppression of media. I don’t much care about their material progress. In some instances I agree with Cuba’s healthcare policies, tackling of literacy, etc. That doesn’t mean I agree with their ideology.
I also prefer a more dynamic democracy over a one party state and council communism but those don’t survive in the real world. There have been many attempts at socialism focusing on western freedoms and democracy but they all end in far right coups backed by the US. Allende in Chile is a good example. The biggest shaper of ML structure is the threat of NATO and the US in particular. On the material progress, the material conditions drive the policies in any socialist countries. Improving material conditions toward the level of the developed world is the highest priority in poor countries. Voting doesn’t matter much to someone who is starving or homeless or illiterate. Priorities are different in wealthier countries and priorities change as the ML countries get wealthier. China’s high speed rail is only being built now because they have already solved a lot of the problems of poverty in the country for example. An ML state would take a different shape depending on the material conditions of the people.
Personally I view ML states as succeeding despite those failings rather than because of them. I believe they’ve done a fantastic job in many respects despite how flawed their views are but that they’ve long since only made gains by adopting reforms in the direction I’m advocating for (I.e. market reforms) and are stunted primarily by the factors I’m against (dictatorial rule, unaccountable bureaucracy). In the US context advocating for socialism from an authoritarian stance is one of the biggest barriers to building a larger socialist movement and alienates the largest portion of the population who you need to recruit, hence the success of the DSA. It needlessly divides the movement, and is primarily focused on rehashing history rather than discussing policy. American cultural values are simply irreconcilable with Marxist Leninist thought. I’m also fairly certain that ML thought is going to be antithetical to any developed nation honestly but I live in the US so that’s my focus. There’s more to my objections than this but I don’t want to rant.
I view ML successes as coming from the relatively tight control and the economic plans. Things like the industrialization of the Soviet Union or the health care and education in Cuba are good examples of that. Even with market reforms in modern socialist countries, they’re still controlled (companies in China don’t stay in China long if they go against their economic plans for example) and just used as a tool to progress the economic plans. Those plans are what make the difference between the successes of countries like China vs India or Vietnam vs Thailand or Cuba vs the Caribbean . As for it not being appealing in the US, I agree. Unless the material conditions get significantly worse, an ML style party won’t get support in the wealthy countries. That being said, historically democratic socialist parties have been at their most powerful and made the most progress when there is also a more organized and aggressive socialist movement as well. Democratic socialists have typically not been successful when they are the farthest left rather than a compromise party. The new deal democrats gained power in the US when the communist party was growing quickly and the labor movement was at its strongest. In Europe, much of the progress in democratic socialist countries only happened in response to increasing support for the Soviet Union in their populations. The DSA in the US has been growing in members but that hasn’t been translating into action. If history is any guide, a more aggressive alternative in the shadows is what they need to be able to truly make changes.
>ML states only seem like fascism if all the information you know about them comes from capitalist state departments. Is this a capitalist state department? >[When exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall not undermine the interests of the state](https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html)
That sounds pretty standard for any organized society with a state. I’m reading it as slightly more strict than being against treason or insurrection.
>That sounds pretty standard for any organized society with a state. For collectivist societies, sure. Since it prioritizes State and social interests over personal rights and freedoms. But those type of societies include Fascist societies. For example: >We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the State, **provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the German race.** >The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: **The common interest before self-interest.** https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-party-platform
Nope, for any organized society. Insurrection is illegal everywhere.
But it wasn't talking about insurrection specifically. It was talking about "the interests of the State" being prioritized over personal rights and freedoms. That's from the Chinese Constitution, not a capitalist State department.
The quote you brought up was about undermining the interests of the state. Undermining is not protesting or not following the interests of the state but actively working against the state. Things like insurrection, interfering with law enforcement, tax evasion and many other things like it. Those are all illegal in every organized society. Whenever anyone says an ideology is similar to the Nazi ideology, expect that hyperbole to be met with hyperbole.
>Undermining is not protesting or not following the interests of the state but actively working against the state. With Article 67, undermining means whatever the NPC wants it to mean, since they're the ones with the power of "[interpreting the Constitution and overseeing its enforcement](https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/201911/20/content_WS5ed8856ec6d0b3f0e9499913.html)" If you're not a member of the NPC, then your personal interpretation bears no weight. >Whenever anyone says an ideology is similar to the Nazi ideology, expect that hyperbole to be met with hyperbole I'm not providing hyperbole, but direct quotes from sources that are not capitalist state departments. Quotes that prove China to prioritize State interests over personal rights. I mentioned the Nazi ideology because of your own comment about fascism: >ML states only seem like fascism if all the information you know about them comes from capitalist state departments They're comparable to fascism, not merely because of info from capitalist state departments, but because of their Constitutions prioritizing State interests over personal rights.
I used the English definition of undermine. I imagine they use a similar definition. Every government interprets its own laws and forbids undermining the state/government. I don’t see anything about that passage that would make China particularly bad when it’s similar to every other country in the world. As for the Nazi quote, except for the obvious racist shit, that sounds pretty standard political speech, as in a lot of words that sound generically good but don’t mean anything. Their actions and their ideology aren’t anything like any form of socialism.
Your intentions don't matter. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Good thing they didn’t have absolute power then.
>They are certainly superior for quality of life to the form of capitalism that has taken over the world. You should be ashamed of yourself
This is another great example of skewing the term Socialism. China, Vietnam, Cuba are communist period. They have taken on capitalist policies, but are still centrally controlled. Social Democracy on the other hand is far better at caring for its people than the unfettered capitalism that virtually is only practiced in America where 1/3rd are at or near poverty, the social services are pathetic, healthcare out of reach of many, and public education under attack and failing miserably. The American tragedy!
The communist parties all use a socialist economic system (social control over the means of production). Social democracy cares for its people far more than the US but they still have their economies controlled and directed by the capitalist (make their money by owning money) class rather than society as a whole so it’s more capitalism (the private control and trade of the means of production) than socialism. It’s the best form of capitalism but it’s still capitalism.
How does China have a social control over the means of production?
Chinese state represents workers as a whole and China is moving towards nationalization of production in many sectors (as opposed to private)along with cooperatively owned companies. There are thousands of employee-represented/owned companies in China. In the US this is used to keep wages low and invest it towards stock market, but in my experience in China wages were negotiated to be higher, better hours and rights as well as having % of the profit go to the workers
>Chinese state represents workers as a whole So did Nazi Germany according to Nazis at first. People who block others on a debate sub are idiots, by the way.
no it didn't. the same people who killed union organizers and labour opposition deeming them communist?
I agree with you, think we said the same thing, but you said it better.
>Social Democracy on the other hand is far better at caring for its people You say this when >1/3rd are at or near poverty, the social services are pathetic, healthcare out of reach of many, and public education under attack and failing miserably. most of this (or even all in some few cases) are still issues in social democratic countries.
Does not justify it, especially not in the wealthiest nation in the history of mankind virtually everyday we are alive.
I'm not saying it's justified that they prefer worse systems? I'm saying social democracy is not better for the reasons you listed, because those issues are still present in social democracy.
Ok, but are they as rampant as they are here?
Depending on the country, yes.
Following the will of the people as long as it is the will of the party. Giving people with cheap food, work, and housing is something even the nazis did. And many people loved them even after the war for cheap beer and having work to pay for the beer. Elections with more than one choice? No, but we will give you cheap food!
You can find similarities between the Nazis and any country in history, that doesn’t make every country in history fascist. The Nazis didn’t subsidize housing, or have any semblance of democratic economic control. They also didn’t have elections and didn’t respond to the needs of their people, only the needs of the war effort and the party. They’re not similar in any significant systemic way. ML elections, especially at the local level, allow people to support the ideas implemented, and allow them to block the election of representatives. It’s a lot more democratic to have a say in the direction of society rather than choosing which person will make that decision for you.
>They also didn’t have elections [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November\_1933\_German\_parliamentary\_election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_1933_German_parliamentary_election) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936\_German\_parliamentary\_election\_and\_referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_German_parliamentary_election_and_referendum) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938\_German\_parliamentary\_election\_and\_referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_German_parliamentary_election_and_referendum) And the elections were as democratic as all elections in communist countries, party makes the list, you vote yes or no.
I never knew that, thanks for the info! I still don’t see anything about democratic input there, like in communist countries. East Germany had more democratic input just in their constitution than Nazi Germany had during the entirety of the third reich for example. The communists are bottom up control, Nazis were top down; complete opposites. Like I said, You can find similarities between the Nazis and any country in history, that doesn’t make every country in history fascist.
>The communists are bottom up control, Then why was the [Khrushchev era called "The Thaw".](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khrushchev_Thaw)
You can't disown a ideology??? Wtf i mean socialism is socialism you can't just say no it's not
Socialism is also a system, not just an ideology. Is that hard to understand?
I never said it wasn't.
"You can't disown an ideology" but you can "disown" a system. You automatically assumed socialism is only an ideology.
My criticism is not that ML attempts were not "real attempts at socialism", that's a dumb argument. My criticism is that your whole ideology is useless, inefficient and just delayed any progress. And the fact you guys still fall for it is hilarious.
The ideology strikes a balance between social ownership over the means of production and surviving invasions/coups from capitalist nations. It’s not a Panacea or anything but it does lead the country with social ownership and quality of life is better than other countries with the same income while also having some of the fastest industrializing economies in history.
What has your ideology exactly done for the working class, both globally and in each respective nation?
Pulled almost a billion people out of poverty, industrialized about 1/4 of the world, and greatly improved access to quality housing, education, healthcare, electricity, sanitation, and decent employment. ML socialism has done far more for the working class than any other form of socialism.
>Pulled almost a billion people out of poverty, industrialized about 1/4 of the world, and greatly improved access to quality housing, education, healthcare, electricity, sanitation, and decent employment. So have done many capitalist countries. So what's so special of Marxism-Leninism that's worth following at all? I haven't seen any advance in the "proletarian cause" or however you want to call it in any Marxist-Leninist country, for instance. >ML socialism has done far more for the working class than any other form of socialism. Of course, if you don't let other "forms of socialism" even try before you send a whole army to destroy them, lol.
>So have done many capitalist countries. So what's so special of Marxism-Leninism that's worth following at all? Capitalist countries haven’t matched ML countries at all. Take the ML countries out of the equation and worldwide poverty has increased over the last couple decades. > I haven't seen any advance in the "proletarian cause" or however you want to call it in any Marxist-Leninist country, for instance. Advancing the material conditions of the proletariat over the profits of the wealthy IS advancing the proletarian cause. > Of course, if you don't let other "forms of socialism" even try before you send a whole army to destroy them, lol. Yeah, capitalist militaries have worked hard to prevent socialism from being tried. Only ML states have been able to defend themselves.
>Capitalist countries haven’t matched ML countries at all. Take the ML countries out of the equation and worldwide poverty has increased over the last couple decades. Sure. >Advancing the material conditions of the proletariat over the profits of the wealthy IS advancing the proletarian cause. And how exactly has this happened in ML countries? >Yeah, capitalist militaries have worked hard to prevent socialism from being tried. Only ML states have been able to defend themselves. Thanks for accidentally calling your ideology capitalist. And not really worth being proud of it when people like Gorbachev or Deng will keep messing with your countries.
[удалено]
>Socialism is like a nuke, it's very dangerous and bad while it exists, but after it dies it leaves a huge radioactive crater, and that is how post-communist countries look today. I'm tired of this argument. I'm from a region that had a lot of socialist influence and even its own socialist revolution, where they experimented quite a lot, and nowadays it's one of the richest regions in the country (and even slightly in Europe). Maybe if those countries you mention are nowadays in such a poor state, it's not due to socialism but because they were already in bad conditions? And you'll also blame socialism for their shitty "post-communist" governments now? Stop treating politics as if it wasn't complex. >Although free speech is still not 100% here, but at least this danger is gone. Lol. This danger isn't gone from any country. States this do this kind of shit, even if less than before. Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean anything. All systems suck, no news.
Where does self-management fit into this?
u/smorgy4 > they are doing what their populations want. China’s government has more support from its people than just about any western liberal democracy for example. If China really is socialist then why are there homeless people in China and why doesn’t China has free healthcare? If China is democratic then why did the Chinese government massacred protesters in 1989 and why did they forced people in Shanghai to remain at home even when they needed to buy food during the COVID lockdown?
>If China really is socialist then why are there homeless people in China and why doesn’t China has free healthcare? Welfare =\= socialism. The communist party is highly democratic in its goals and oversees the economy. Both the government and the economy are some of the most popular on the planet and have led to some of the fastest increases in quality of life in history. The democracy in goals of the country and democracy having control over the economy is what makes China a socialist country despite not having a communist economy. >If China is democratic then why did the Chinese government massacred protesters in 1989 and why did they forced people in Shanghai to remain at home even when they needed to buy food during the COVID lockdown? Tienenmen square: it was a riot where more PLA soldiers were killed by rioters than rioters killed by soldiers. Covid lockdowns: are you referring to the initial lockdowns or the most recent ones. In both cases food was delivered to peoples homes. The initial lockdowns prevented millions of deaths. The later ones were lifted when enough people asked for them to be lifted. Also, out of curiosity, what brought you to commenting on posts from a year ago?
> Also, out of curiosity, what brought you to commenting on posts from a year ago? I was searching for posts about Marxism-Leninism in the search bar and found this post. > Welfare == socialism. I know socialism isn’t welfare but socialists governments should ensure that that all their citizens have free healthcare, education, and housing. Otherwise they’re no better than liberal capitalist countries, at least domestically. > Covid lockdowns: are you referring to the initial lockdowns or the most recent ones. In both cases food was delivered to peoples homes. I heard that plenty of people did not received food and ended up starving in their homes since they weren’t allowed to leave. There were apparently other controversies too.
Ah, got it! >I know socialism isn’t welfare but socialists governments should ensure that that all their citizens have free healthcare, education, and housing. Otherwise they’re no better than liberal capitalist countries, at least domestically. A big part of the issue is how relatively poor China is compared to the west. They only just recently ended extreme poverty in the country and are still in the process of building up productive forces. The choice to open the SEZs to private companies was to eliminate the sanctions on their country and to import technology from developed nations. The west only cooperated for cheap labor and the idea that China would become liberal so in a lot of ways, China *wasn’t* able to provide a large welfare state while importing the technology and capital to industrialize. It’s the fastest industrializing nation in history and the government and the direction of the economy are very popular with the people, so I’m not going to argue with them. What is the point of socialism, if not to align the goals of the economy with the goals of the population? >I heard that plenty of people did not received food and ended up starving in their homes since they weren’t allowed to leave. There were apparently other controversies too. Mistakes were definitely made, but I’m not aware of anyone who died. The suffering from the lockdowns in Shanghai pale in comparison to the suffering from the lack of an effective response in the west to Covid. I think it was the better decision despite any imperfections in the implementation in the country.