Answer my question first. Until then, I’ll ask another: which Capitalist nations can be considered successful, happy, with all basic necessities covered? Not even the Nordic Countries do that, and they still brutally exploit the global south.
Do you think it’s because they are Capitalist, or do you think it’s because they’re developed, and started industrializing earlier, with plentiful access to global trade?
It absolutely matters. If you’re tying development to quality of life, which I agree with, you also have to make the absolute claim that Socialist states can’t develop, which I disagree with. Capitalism is only a few hundred years old anyways, and already is failing, ie disparity is continuing to accelerate to unsustainable levels.
First of all, what is a “Communist state?” There’s no such thing, so if you clarify what you are referring to, that would help.
Secondly, clarify what you mean by “failed,” because either you don’t know much about leftist states or you’re using a different meaning of the word “failed.”
Finally, what do you mean “the idea sounds good on paper?” If it sounds good on paper, ie it works in theory, what about reality is an unknown factor? If humans can’t grasp it (whatever that means), then it doesn’t work in theory!
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. It cannot be adopted by a state. You’re referring to Socialist states.
You clearly do have problems with Socialism, or at least some forms. Democratic Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, organized similar to a liberal democracy. That’s fine, but the goal of Democratic Socialism is still Communism, eventually.
You were not in fact referring to Communism, which is why I asked that question in the first place.
The USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was headed by a Communist Party, ie a party trying to build towards Communism, but through Socialism. The end-goal of Socialism is to eventually do away with the state, class, and money, as all 3 are used to oppress people, creating Communism. Same with Cuba.
Sweden is not Socialist, it’s a Social Democracy. The mode of production is Capitalism, with expanded social safety nets. Some industries are nationalized, but Capital is largely in the hands of Capitalists, not shared among Workers. Actual Democratic Socialism would be like if Sweden’s Unions took ownership of all Industry, but maintained government structures.
I hope that clears things up! What you call Communism, is in fact a specific form of Marxist-Leninist Socialism, most likely.
What, specifically, about Communism is easier to take advantage of with greed and corruption than Capitalism? Why can’t these issues be cleared up with policy changes, and are structural to Communism?
Why does Anarchism having more forms detract from its validity?
Answer my question first. Until then, I’ll ask another: which Capitalist nations can be considered successful, happy, with all basic necessities covered? Not even the Nordic Countries do that, and they still brutally exploit the global south.
I don’t know, man… most developed nations are having quite a nice ride compared to the so-called communist countries.
Do you think it’s because they are Capitalist, or do you think it’s because they’re developed, and started industrializing earlier, with plentiful access to global trade?
Does this matter? Every communist state I’ve known has failed.
The idea may sound good in principle, but clearly humans can’t grasp it.
It absolutely matters. If you’re tying development to quality of life, which I agree with, you also have to make the absolute claim that Socialist states can’t develop, which I disagree with. Capitalism is only a few hundred years old anyways, and already is failing, ie disparity is continuing to accelerate to unsustainable levels.
First of all, what is a “Communist state?” There’s no such thing, so if you clarify what you are referring to, that would help.
Secondly, clarify what you mean by “failed,” because either you don’t know much about leftist states or you’re using a different meaning of the word “failed.”
Finally, what do you mean “the idea sounds good on paper?” If it sounds good on paper, ie it works in theory, what about reality is an unknown factor? If humans can’t grasp it (whatever that means), then it doesn’t work in theory!
You’re playing red scare bingo, lol
A communist state is just that. A nation that adopted communism.
I never mentioned socialism. I think socialism is okay. Or at least democratic socialism.
I was referring to communism.
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. It cannot be adopted by a state. You’re referring to Socialist states.
You clearly do have problems with Socialism, or at least some forms. Democratic Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, organized similar to a liberal democracy. That’s fine, but the goal of Democratic Socialism is still Communism, eventually.
You were not in fact referring to Communism, which is why I asked that question in the first place.
Thanks for the lesson. Now, what do people mean when they say that Soviet Russia and Cuba are communists?
I don’t think democratic socialism leads towards communism. Hasn’t Sweden implemented a form of socialism, for example?
My questions are not confrontational, but I’ll admit they’re rooted in my limited knowledge but also in my very real experience.
I come from a country that could have been a communism wonder having adopted a socialist approach in 1999, and today it’s in shambles.
Great questions, and I’ll answer both.
The USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was headed by a Communist Party, ie a party trying to build towards Communism, but through Socialism. The end-goal of Socialism is to eventually do away with the state, class, and money, as all 3 are used to oppress people, creating Communism. Same with Cuba.
Sweden is not Socialist, it’s a Social Democracy. The mode of production is Capitalism, with expanded social safety nets. Some industries are nationalized, but Capital is largely in the hands of Capitalists, not shared among Workers. Actual Democratic Socialism would be like if Sweden’s Unions took ownership of all Industry, but maintained government structures.
I hope that clears things up! What you call Communism, is in fact a specific form of Marxist-Leninist Socialism, most likely.
Show me happy people.
What, specifically, about Communism is easier to take advantage of with greed and corruption than Capitalism? Why can’t these issues be cleared up with policy changes, and are structural to Communism?
Why does Anarchism having more forms detract from its validity?