110
Posadist Star Trek is solid canon
(hexbear.net)
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 07 Aug 2023
110 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45545 readers
1170 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
Of course. It works well in an economy of plenty.
We've got one of those already
Not on the scale of Star Trek, where advanced technology such as replicators allows them to create food out of waste through atomic recomposition. Modern-day communist societies such as the Soviet Union are plagued by hunger and starvation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933
USSR and China aren't really communist countries. They are, at best, revisionist. They are command economies with state-capitalism and authoritarian rulers that definitely have different social classes. While USSR ostensibly got rid of personal property, that just entailed the authoritarian owning everything. Both countries lied to the people to get a socialist revolution started and then seized all power for their party (which don't exist in communism).
China is about as communist as the DPRK is democratic.
With all due respect some parts are crudely wrong and some absurd, and the decisiveness with which you state it is unjustified and makes it hard to take you seriously.
Absolutely not. They got rid of private property. Personal property means the ownership over your personal belongings. Private property is the ownership of non-governmental entities. What existed in the USSR was public property - the property of the state
Also: No. Capitalism is defined by the existence of private property, concretely the private ownership of the means of production. There was no private property.
There also were no competitive markets, no "free" price systems nor a ubiquitous profit motive, no finance capital and certainly more characteristics of capitalism.
You can't call the USSR capitalist in any capacity, that would be ignorant, the best label to assign it I've heard is: "state-socialist".
Where is that from? NED weekly magazine?;)
The USSR did fail the people in many regards, sometimes criminally so, and its important to learn from them, but for that to happen we must undertake a serious attempt at understanding them. There is a lot of neoliberal propaganda ("history is written by the winners" etc).
I didn't talk about China bc calling it capitalist is significantly less absurd but rest assured I don't subscribe to your statement.
Obligatory Michael Parenti
Its forgivable we have all been molded by the propaganda of out capitalist ruling class, but we can't be content with that. In the end you seem to be making a nod to communism, if that is true then stay on course we need a better socialism but we can't expect to have it if we're not willing to learn
So the soviet union had a single famine 8 years after it was formed, compared to the hundereds before, in the middle of a great depression and complete isolation on the international stage, and you condemn the rest of its existence as being 'plagued by starvation and hunger'?
P.s Heres a link to a declassified CIA document stating that compared to the average US diet, the soviets ate approximately the same amount of food, and had a more nutritious diet overall.
www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP85M00363R000601440024-5.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiO-7euxM6AAxV-VkEAHaigD0UQFnoECBUQAQ&usg=AOvVaw06QRMVGCOurHDUtg96SRq0
TIL the Soviet Union is still around
No, but it's still within the modern era of technology.
TIL the Soviet Union in 1930 had comparable technology to today
Modern doesn't mean just like today. The modern era of technology is basically everything after the industrial revolution.
May have something to do with modern capitalist nations taking economic action against modern communist countries, at least in part. Not that they don't have their own issues caused by an unreasonably sensitive transition.
I feel if you assume the good will which a communist society would need to flourish, a capitalist society would also be egalitarian under similar conditions.
Capitalism encourages and even requires antagonism, so even if people started as good, it is difficult to maintain that in the population over generations. In communism, the reward for being greedy or lazy is insignificant. I wouldn't go so far as to call myself a communist, but I would say that I'm cynical of capitalism.
Capitalism is inherently anti-egalitarian in the same way feudalism is.
Not if you assume people will be altruistic and that the system will not be corrupt, which are the assumptions people make for theoretical communism. Then it too can be egalitarian.
No, capitalism concentrates wealth by design. No corruption is required (but it does help).