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

    I am asking in good faith. I will respond to your questions :

    “Capitalism is efficient, Cuba/China not efficient. Hmmm?”.

    Multiple people have agreed with me on this that capitalism is good at developing quickly. I have not mentioned China, as it is developing rapidly after liberalization. I have mentioned about NEP and Deng's reforms as proof of this.

    "Nordic countries best on earth. Why do you hate? Communism bad"

    I have mentioned the objective measures like social wage, HDI etc. It's common knowledge that Iceland, Sweden are some of the best places to live. Like some people may disagree, but its more or less common knowledge. Do you have any reasons why Sweden is a worse place to live than, say, Thailand or Chile? I didnt say "Communism bad" in a simplistic way. I said I don't want to live in a country where the govt controls everything and you dont have freedom of speech like in NK. That's a personal desire. I'm well aware of Cuba's excellent social services, zero unemployment in NK etc.

    "“Workers do not want communism"

    Based on how many votes Communist parties get.

    The OP has no intention of learning from the responses in this thread.

    I actually learned a lot. I'm not going to change my political views based on a single internet post. Someone mentioned that making the whole world like Norway would be desirable for communists, which is agreeable to me. Most of the disagreements are about how social democrats would betray communists, to which I mentioned that self-described social democrats can be anyone from Starmer to Evo Morales. So its not about ideology but the people involved. No one has yet responded to my main point, why implement a Cuba/NK style economy when its clearly not working well? And if thats not what you want, then what would communism look like to you?

    • dead [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Countries that challenge capital are sanctioned by capitalists. Countries that do not challenge capital are not sanctioned by capitalists.

      I do not think that Cuba and DPRK are bad. They are suffering economically because they are sanctioned and terrorized by US imperialism. The reason that you think that nobody likes Cuba is because the only Cubans that you have heard from are those that fled Cuba. The people who fled Cuba were the oppressors of the old Cuba. You are erasing the people who still choose to live in these countries.

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

        I understand that but I think we are arguing past each other. Take Bolivia and China for example. I would prefer the economic systems in these two countries, even though they are also threats to Western imperialism, as evidenced by the Anez coup and by the anti-Chinese sentiments. Im talking about the govt control that Cuba and DPRK has, Im saying I dont like that system. That's my main issue. Im not against govt control per se, but complete and utter govt control. For example, 35% of Norway economy is state owned which is even higher than Venezuela;s 30%. So im OK with govt control of key industries but not DPRK style total ownership.

        • vccx [they/them]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Having a unified Communist party is functionally more democratic. The CPC has no one to blame and thereby maintains its legitimacy through sheer performance in improving the material conditions for hundreds of millions.

          It also precludes any party politics for candidates vying for election into the party, no DNC to stop Bernie Sanders, for example.

        • dead [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          All of leftist theory is predicated on the idea that there are primarily two large economic classes with inherent conflict of interests. The capitalist class is a group of people who collect capital by owning things and/or extracting surplus value from wage labor. The working class is a group of people who have to sell their labor for a wage. If the working class works harder to produce more things and/or is payed a lower wage, then the capitalist class benefits and working class suffers. Inversely, if the working class works less hard to produce less things and/or is payed a higher wage, then the capitalist class suffers and the working class benefits. Leftists want the capitalist class to not exist. Capitalists should control 0% of the economy. Capitalists should not exist because they are parasitic to the working class and do not add value to the labor process. Workers should control 100% of the economy and if a government is needed to seize the ownership from the capitalists, then so be it.

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

            I more or less agree with this. My main differences is that I want to do this democratically, and secondly, worker ownership is distinct from government ownership for me. A shoe factory owned by workers who profit from it is different from a shoe factory owned by the governmet that employs workers. I would prefer to work in a place that is entirely controlled and owned by the people working there, rather than some government buearucrat. Also the democracy part is kinda important to me. The solution to lack of democracy under capitalism is not even less democracy under socialism.

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

              You want some brand of syndicalism or other anarchism flavor by the sound of it. Most people on this site are Marxist-Leninists of some kind and hold the belief that a vanguard is necessary to establish communism - usually that's a reclaimed People's government that removes the capitalist class.

              Anarchism is more of an end state of communism and involves all unjust hierarchies being abolished and power itself being destroyed or decentralized so all members of a community or business have equal voting right in it.

    • ComradeBeana [comrade/them,she/her]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I just wanna point out a few things that I feel aren’t being communicated fully and I get a sense that you are very new to some of these concepts (which is okay! We all start somewhere)

      1. The socially democratic countries you mention (I’m just adding this on top of all the other arguments mentioned against the system in these countries) still get their wealth from exploiting global south countries. Sure there are more social programs that give the people living in these countries better infrastructure and health care but the initial wealth that allowed this to happen comes from the exploitation of land and people. Building wealth from exploitation is bad. (And wealth is usually always built from exploitation)
      1. People vote against communism/socialist leaning programs and people because the imperial core has put trillions of dollars towards making sure voters think “communism” and “socialism” are evil scary words. I mean the sheer levels of money and effort that have gone into weaving anti-communist propaganda into almost every aspect of western culture is staggering. This is why u have people in the US generally supporting the concept of m4a and being fed up with the for profit system, but as soon as it’s framed as being a “socialist” program, they are against it. (As one example)
      1. You also have to think about what “freedom of speech” really means in a country like the US, where the all of the news outlets have an imperialist bias because they are all owned by corporations, and calling out any of America’s wrong doing is silenced. And in countries outside of the US, western media is STILL perpetuating the “land of milk and honey, greatest country ever, so many opportunities here wow!” facade, which if you live here, you know ISNT TRUE, and is harmful propaganda to countries that are trying to stand up to capitalism on very shaky, weak legs. (This is just one example of why the catch-all “freedom of speech” term needs to be constantly reevaluated in terms of its material conditions)