1. Marx agreed that capitalism is very good at rapid economic growth, which is why Lenin implemented the NEP and Deng Xiaoping implemented the liberal reforms. So why abandon that completely for the system like in Cuba or North Korea which are very inefficient and grow slowly?

  2. Norway, Sweden, Iceland etc are the best places to live on earth. Clearly social democracy has provided the goods. Of course in recent years, due to neoliberalism, those countries are not as great places to live anymore, but they are still the best in the world. So why are you against social democracy if when implemented correctly, it is the best system we have seen? Communism also if not implemented correctly produced horrific results, its all about the implementation. Ideas alone are not enough.

  3. The vast majority of workers do not want communism. How will you try to establish communism democratically when people dont want it? When people say they want socialism, they usually talk about social programs or nationalization of key industries, rather than implementing Cuba or North Korea economy, no one wants that.

EDIT : I have another question. Are communists willing to work with social-democrats? Obviously neoliberalism and fascism are bigger threats, so wouldnt it make sense to vote for and support social democrats like AOC in USA or Corbyn in UK or Mélenchon in France?

  • Leon_Grotsky [comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Marx agreed that capitalism is very good at rapid economic growth, which is why Lenin implemented the NEP and Deng Xiaoping implemented the liberal reforms. So why abandon that completely for the system like in Cuba or North Korea which are very inefficient and grow slowly?

    You misunderstand, you do not "abandon completely for Cuba or North Korea." The idea is Capitalism is/was a necessary step of civilizational development (or however you want to characterize it) that inevitably will become obsolete (or will require to be completely destroyed) as we build towards post-scarcity. Those reforms were implemented because they were perceived as necessary to industrialize and build up productive forces in those nations.

    In regards to the last sentence here, do you think that the slow growth could be at least in part explained by the fact both of those countries have persisted under harsh economic sanctions for almost the entirety of their contemporary existence?

    Norway, Sweden, Iceland etc are the best places to live on earth. Clearly social democracy has provided the goods. Of course in recent years, due to neoliberalism, those countries are not as great places to live anymore, but they are still the best in the world. Communism also if not implemented correctly produced horrific results, its all about the implementation. Ideas alone are not enough.

    This is rather subjective, don't you think? What metric are you you using to determine "the best in the world" despite "[being] not as great places to live anymore?"

    So why are you against social democracy if when implemented correctly, it is the best system we have seen?

    Because proponents of social democracy are seeking to make concessions of fundamental social reforms at my expense (as a socialist) in order to rationalize what you perceive to be "socialistic practices" with the status quo.

    I seek ultimately a holistic global community that no longer has a need for the exploitation of the other, where the people recognize each other as themselves. What use is there for this sentiment in an ostensibly liberal democracy?

    Communism also if not implemented correctly produced horrific results, its all about the implementation.

    You will need to explain what you perceive to be properly vs. improperly implemented communism.

    Ideas alone are not enough.

    Correct, I don't know what rational person (let alone materialist?) disagrees.

    The vast majority of workers do not want communism. How will you try to establish communism democratically when people dont want it? When people say they want socialism, they usually talk about social programs or nationalization of key industries, rather than implementing Cuba or North Korea economy, no one wants that.

    I'm sorry but you should have just left this off. I'm a person who would rather live in Cuba than Sweden or Norway, am I not a person saying I long for socialism in your estimation? You are going to come onto a forum containing thousands of self-identified Leftists and tell them what their beliefs are? You especially cannot speak for all other 7.8 billion people on the planet, and it's foolish to pretend you can.

    I have another question. Are communists willing to work with social-democrats? Obviously neoliberalism and fascism are bigger threats, so wouldnt it make sense to vote for and support social democrats like AOC in USA or Corbyn in UK or Mélenchon in France?

    Idealistically? Yes, Socialism/Communism is inclusive not exclusive.

    Realistically?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_uprising

    • sozialdemokraten [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Those reforms were implemented because they were perceived as necessary to industrialize and build up productive forces in those nations.

      That makes a lot of sense, but it more or less admits that capitalism is better for development than communism, no?

      In regards to the last sentence here, do you think that the slow growth could be at least in part explained by the fact both of those countries have persisted under harsh economic sanctions for almost the entirety of their contemporary existence?

      I more or less agree that without price systems and competition, there is inefficiency, corruption, lack of incentive to develop etc.

      This is rather subjective, don’t you think? What metric are you you using to determine “the best in the world” despite “[being] not as great places to live anymore?”

      HDI, social wage, real wages, quality of life, worker conditions etc

      Because proponents of social democracy are seeking to make concessions of fundamental social reforms at my expense (as a socialist) in order to rationalize what you perceive to be “socialistic practices” with the status quo. I seek ultimately a holistic global community that no longer has a need for the exploitation of the other, where the people recognize each other as themselves. What use is there for this sentiment in an ostensibly liberal democracy?

      I agree with this sentiment, the same problem is also 'within' social democracy. For example, Keir Starmer vs Jeremy Corbyn. I also have certain reforms I want that will be called "communist" by right wingers and liberals (for example, nationalization of the grid, nationalization of banks etc). I also believe in open borders, end of unfair trade deals etc. Its definitely not something that will be achieved easily. But I dont agree with planned economy, govt control of entire economy, no freedom of speech, human rights etc like in North korea.

      You will need to explain what you perceive to be properly vs. improperly implemented communism.

      I'll admit I dont know what properly implemented communism would look like. I just feel communism hasnt been correctly implemented because of all the usual problems associated with it like inefficiency, dictatorships etc.

      I’m sorry but you should have just left this off. I’m a person who would rather live in Cuba than Sweden or Norway, am I not a person saying I long for socialism in your estimation? You are going to come onto a forum containing thousands of self-identified Leftists and tell them what their beliefs are? You especially cannot speak for all other 7.8 billion people on the planet, and it’s foolish to pretend you can.

      Im definitely wrong to speak for everyone, but I was just talking about in general. Like you dont see African migrants trying to immigrate to Cuba, instead they try to go to Norway or Sweden etc. I think most people would prefer to live in Scandinavia than North Korea. Like not all of course, definitely communists may want to live in NK, but then again, most people arent communists.

      • Leon_Grotsky [comrade/them]
        ·
        4 years ago

        That makes a lot of sense, but it more or less admits that capitalism is better for development than communism, no?

        I believe I already answered this question.

        Consider this instead; must you develop your industrial capacity forever?

        Is it possible to develop industrial capacity forever?

        Is it possible to reach a state of over -produced industrial capacity?

        If this last one in particular is true, then doesn't it require us to inevitably evolve past a system whose most benign trait is rapid and destructive development?

        I more or less agree that without price systems and competition, there is inefficiency, corruption, lack of incentive to develop etc.

        You say you agree, but refer to things I did not; you have me confused.

        HDI, social wage, real wages, quality of life, worker conditions etc

        While these are nice things to keep track of, I think it is incredibly shallow to presume these are what defines a "good" life.

        Im definitely wrong to speak for everyone, but I was just talking about in general. Like you dont see African migrants trying to immigrate to Cuba, instead they try to go to Norway or Sweden etc. I think most people would prefer to live in Scandinavia than North Korea. Like not all of course, definitely communists may want to live in NK, but then again, most people arent communists.

        I apologise if this part came across as harsh in the last reply, I tend to sound combative when I am trying to communicate clearly.

        Like you dont see African migrants trying to immigrate to Cuba, instead they try to go to Norway or Sweden etc. I think most people would prefer to live in Scandinavia than North Korea.

        I think this is another silly point that should be left out of the discussion. More emigrate intra-regionally to "richer" parts of Africa than Scandinavia, what does this say?

        spoiler

        I apologise this wasn't as deep as the last reply, but I've already overstayed my shift at work by 7 minutes to type this and I am punished for overtime so I may have to come back to it.