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?

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

    Those are good points, although I think most people want social democracy. Unfortunately between racism and social democracy, most will choose racism, but eventually I think people actually want Social democracy. For example, in Hungary/Poland, you have racists in power, but they also implement universal healthcare, maternal leave etc. In Hungary they even pay a lot just to have children, and support families.

    • spectre [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I think most people want social democracy.

      People generally want stable and comfortable material conditions, the average person isn't concerned with how that is provided, though if they are in a stable/comfortable living condition they will likely be attached to whatever ideology/economic system enables this for them.

      Most social democratic countries are able to provide a high quality of life for people who live in them. Certainly that appeals to people fortunate to live there, and people who are not. Their domestic policies and legislation are mostly good. Unfortunately they still operate within the capitalist mode of production with no real answer as to how to resolve its shortcomings. Modern social democracies are necessarily built on the exploitation of labor, both internally and what we call the "Global South". They also exist in their current form due to a historic threat of something that was considered "more extreme" by their ruling classes, and made compromises to placate their workers and avoid a revolution. Since then, they have slowly chipped away at their somewhat equitable system to something that starts to resemble your typical neoliberalism (this is an ongoing process).

      Few socialists have contention with the internal policies of a social democracy, but it is not a "stable state" that will be perpetually equal (ish). A more substantial overhaul of economic relations is necessary in order to abolish the class systems that oppress large swathes of human society. Without this, we will end up right back where we are now (or worse).

        • spectre [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Yes, there is a lot of overlap and commonalities. I think that most people here would be very happy if the whole world looked something like Norway/Sweden. That's (kinda sorta) the end goal.

          What frustrates many of us Marxists (which you might be discussing in another thread, I'm not browsing the whole thing), is that social democrats fall short of having a real "materialist" analysis, and stops at the "ideals" which we already agree on. If someone is interested in understanding further, that materialist analysis is important. At that point, the pressure points and opportunities that are available for political action are more obvious, and it is a matter of organizing people to take revolutionary action (this is a one-sentence summary of Leninism which is a political application of Marxism that has proven effective in the past).

          You may be already familiar with some of this and ahead of what I'm saying here, it sounds like you are earnestly trying to learn more about other viewpoints.

      • MaoTheLawn [any, any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        This is great. To the point. Reminds of of some of Chomsky's radio appearances.

        • spectre [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          I consider that a big compliment, thank you comrade.

          I notice that many of our fellow posters on here often get bogged down in theory and getting everything "correct" to their understanding which makes things complicated. When we're talking with people who aren't familiar with all this complicated stuff, I think it's better to simplify things and get them on track to the "next" question/concept, since it's going to take a lot of time anyway. You can probably pick out what I'm trying to lead our friend sozial toward in my posts fairly easily. It's on them to research more or ask more questions, but at least they know what they are looking for whenever it pops up.

          Makes it a lot easier that they are on the right track anyway.