891
Check out my "Read Theory, Darn it!" introductory reading list!
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 06 Jan 2025
891 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
49433 readers
636 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Capitalism sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats, and socialism also sucks because of oligarchs and kleptocrats.
Remember Stalin and his style of socialism? Just because one hell sucks doesn’t mean another hell is better.
The only type of socialism which has made any kind of sense in recent times is the Nordic Model.
Edit let’s not kid ourselves about the “greatness” of socialist countries when China has 50% poverty rate
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country
Here’s also a great article on how everyday life was like in the Soviet Union, https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en
Capitalism doesn't suck because of individual bad actors, but systemic issues. Competition naturally results in monopolization and the death of competition, and rising disparity. In addition, the tendency for the rate of profit to fall results in businesses and corporations seeking to move production abroad, to over-exploit and under-develop countries in the Global South by paying poverty wages. This extends to IMF loans, as well.
Socialism doesn't have these same problems. No, it isn't some perfect system, such a claim would be absurd. However, collectivization of Capital and producing with the aim of fulfilling needs, rather than pursuit of profit, helps to eliminate the excesses of Capitalist exploitation. In addition to the reduction in exploitation, central planning is very efficient once competition stagnates.
It's funny that you bring up the Nordic model, Nordic countries are seeing withering safety nets, (and are Capitalist, not Socialist) which in turn are generally funded from the same hyper-exploitation of the Global South in the form of brutal IMF loans and unequal exchange. The Safety Nets themselves came as concessions towards strong internal labor organization and the strong safety nets of the neighboring USSR, who had free high quality healthcare, education, and more. Now that the USSR is gone, the safety nets have been withering.
I wouldn't say decaying Imperialist ethno states are a "good" model to look towards.
I mean, every country to date has been an ethnostate of one type or another, with the exception of what America wanted or purported to be. I’d add Canada and Australia to that as well. Have a look at these socialists states, which one isn’t centered around a dominant ethnicity? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states. So I don’t think using the label of “ethnostate” to disparage democratic counties is justified.
Second, I agree that the global south is heavily exploited, but that seriously discounts successful countries in BRICS or East Asia. We need to understand why those countries succeeded, and others could not, and a lot of the failures of global south actors have to do with corruption and lack of solidarity with each other. Granted, imperial powers instigated instability in every continent, but it didn’t work many times, especially in East Asia. Africa is a great example of failing to realize its potential, a unionized Africa would be a force to reckon with. The “global south” needs to stop blaming convenient scapegoats for many of its own problems. You can’t be like, oh once we fix greed everything will be okay! How do you ever propose to fix greed? Even if the whole world agrees to be socialist, examples like Stalins USSR show us that greed exists to corrupt any economic and political model. It’s disingenuous to say otherwise.
I am not saying we have to be capitalist, I am saying it’s disingenuous to say that greed occurs because of capitalism, and not the other way around. You don’t have to dismantle the whole world to start taxing wealthy people at a higher rate, and start using those funds in a sensible way like they do in the Nordic model.
The Nordic countries are pretty clearly among the most ethnically homogenous and at a state level quite hostile to foreigners and immigrants. This is pretty clear cut and dry. The US, Australia, etc are more Settler-Colonial. The Nordics certainly have stronger labor organization, which helps, but ultimately rely on Imperialism and again, are decaying like the rest of the Global North.
As for the Glonal South, I think you're vastly misanalyzing the situation. BRICS is successful despite the Imperialist countries, the blame should not be on the oppressed but the oppressors. Such a blame is akin to Macron's recent statement that African countries should be greatful to the French for colonizing them and making them "sovereign nations." The Imperialists aren't merely a convenient scapegoat, but regularly exploiting them. Countries like Burkina Faso and Algeria became the extreme targets of Empire for daring to go against the Imperialist countries, it isn't like countries can just "say no" to Imperialism.
As for the USSR, while it certainly had very real problems, ultimately the Socialist system was a dramatic improvement on the Tsarist regime and was far superior to modern Capitalism. It's pretty unquestionable that the working class had far more power back then, with some of the best education and healthcare in the world provided entirely free. The Soviets were advancing science and global healthcare. It's worth listening to Dr. Michael Parenti's 1986 speech, affectionately titled "Yellow Parenti." Socialism may not be perfect, but that doesn't mean it is equally bad to Capitalism, and to pretend "greed" impacts all economic systems equally is a failed form of logic without doing the legwork of proving that.
Circling back to the Nordics, the model only "works" inasmuch as the Nordic Countries currently function as global parasites on the labor of the Global South, like the rest of the Global North, their model depends on this, and as the tendency for the rate of profit persists they are introducing more austerity measures and weakening the safety nets, disparity is rising, and worker protections are falling. Higher unionization rates slow this process, but can't stop it, Capitalism must be replaced with Socialism. The Nordic Model is not "sensible," it's dying.
You don't have to dismantle the world, it has prepared the foundations for moving beyond the current system into a Socialist one. Centralization and monopolization of markets paves the way for public ownership and central planning to be a smooth transition. Socialists don't want to tear down the system, but to move beyond it to the next Mode of Production via erasure of the Capitalist state and replacing with a Proletarian one.
No. Cuz I wasn't alive at that time.
But yea, I did read about it in This Soviet World, Soviet Democracy, Russian Justice, and Blackshirts and Reds
Cool, also read about it on neutral sources
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism
Wikipedia, especially English language Wikipedia, ain’t exactly neutral. And anyway “neutral” is fantasy. It doesn’t exist.
Anyone can edit it, what’s your problem?
Sure, anyone can edit. It’s just the invisible hand of the marketplace of ideas. and I have a bridge to sell you.
How does that discount my point? Anyone can edit it.
And your edits will be reverted and you will be banned
That’s if you’re even allowed to edit it in the first place.
"neutral" as if.
Edit: also oh no! Not the Stalinist... prohibition on using handcuffs?
Chapter X, Russian Justice
lol what a cherry picked example, ignoring ranks of his people getting picked up by state agents to be put to death. How disingenuous
Which ranks of his people were put to death?
Declassified CIA report:
A lot of the cold war propaganda about Stalin turned out to be bullshit, as contemporary Western academic historians will tell you.
Jesus, how fucking illiterate are westerners that they think fucking Wikipedia is a neutral source.
It's worth responding to your edit in a separate comment.
First, China. That data shows 45% living under $10 a day, and has no data provided on the "poverty rate" column. Not only are you misreporting by 11%, but you are conveniently reporting the wrong data. Essentially, you reported the wrong quantity for the wrong quality. Furthermore, this data is half a decade old, when we know 3 years ago China completed a mass poverty aleviation campaign and over the course of around a decade uplifted 800 million people out of poverty.
Furthermore, 10 dollars gets you far more in different parts of China than the wealthier coastal cities, who were the first to be developed more thoroughly. Given that a century ago China was among the poorest countries in the world, its progress has been astounding overall, and in the more rural inland areas have been a major focus in the last decade. Unlike more developed countries, China is still a developing country, and as such despite its rapid improvement has a long way to go before every area is like one of the more developed tier 1 cities.
Secondly, the USSR. Not only is this article from a Private Christian College, it does't contradict that, again, wealth disparity shrank to one of the lowest in the world while maintaining some of the highest rates of economic growth in the world, free, high quality education and healthcare were provided, literacy rates more than tripled to the highest in the world, science, technology, culture, and even sports flourished. Life expectancy doubled, and despite having much of their housing destroyed by the Nazi invasion in WWII, they quickly built the now stereotyped "soviet bloc" housing to house as many people as possible.
All the article really seems to say, therefore, is that society wasn't perfect, which nobody here has said. It does not make the case that the Socialist system was worse than the semi-feudalism of before or the Capitalism it is today, rather, it just said some degree of corruption existed but in a way that was far less than it was before or after Socialism.
The fact that you are either intentionally or unintentionally reporting wrong numbers for wrong metrics that are already outdated as some "gotcha" for countries that began as some of the poorest on the planet, and use the fact that the aren't like the Nordic Countries, that have spend centuries pillaging and looting the Global South and had centuries longer to develop, is dishonest and ill-informed. I suggest reading Super Imperialism by Hudson if you want to take a modern (2021 is the latest revision) look at the way the Global North, and specifically the US, rob and loot the world.
State Capitalism went away when they transitioned away from the NEP and went for a more collectivized economy. I think you need to brush up more on theory.