-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
To the comrades reading this:
OP, while many of us might find their views to be harmful or incompatible with our own, went to the effort of coming here to ask what appear to be good-faith questions looking for information. OP also does not appear to harbor any resentment towards any of us or any marginalized groups we stand in defense of. We think our ideas are good, right? Good-faith, curious people are future comrades. This isn't tone policing, let's just act in the most effective way to strengthen our movement. Not a single one of you was born an ML/anarchist and being high and mighty to those who aren't as educated as you are is how you kill the left from the inside out.
Next time, if we scare a new OP less knowledgeable than @sozialdemokraten away, some cryptofash skinhead will be happy to welcome them with open, ghoulish arms.
I do not for a second believe that OP asked the questions in good faith. You can hardly even call these question. They wrote statements of their own beliefs and then begged the reader to disagree.
First question, "Capitalism is efficient, Cuba/China not efficient. Hmmm?". Second question, "Nordic countries best on earth. Why do you hate? Communism bad". Third question, "Workers do not want communism. China Cuba Vuvuzela?"
The OP has no intention of learning from the responses in this thread. The OP only wants to position themself as the "more rational" person in the thread and to waste your time. Look at all their replies in this thread, all say "good response but I still disagree". OP has no intention of changing. This is all in bad faith.
I don't think that's evidence that this is in bad faith, these are beliefs that are sincerely held by plenty of people.
And even if it is in bad faith, it's good to know how to argue against these points anyway.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
They wrote statements of their own beliefs and then begged the reader to disagree
Yeah, so?
A loaded question forces an assumption on the responder. This is bad faith.
As example in 'question' 2, OP writes "So why are you against social democracy if when implemented correctly, it is the best system we have seen?". The responder is forced to operate under the assumption that "(social democracy) is the best system that we have seen". This is not really a question. It is just an assertion that "(social democracy) is the best system that we have seen".
It's like if I were to ask you "How long have you been a liberal ?". This would force the assumption on to you that you are a liberal, despite you not being a liberal.
If you think someone asking "well why don't you like this when it's so good" when they actually believe that is automatically nefarious and bad faith, then perhaps you've spent way too much time on reddit or whatever.
You are correct. If someone uses one loaded question, they are not automatically nefarious or bad faith, but the OP has about 15 or 20 incorrect assumptions baked into 3 "questions".
Perhaps it is because they think they are correct, because this is what socdems believe?
So why abandon that completely for the system like in Cuba or North Korea which are very inefficient and grow slowly?
These countries, while under siege, have built functioning societies from rubble. The people there are happy. What exactly is the problem you're pointing out? What does it mean to be "inefficient?" In what way?
What does it mean to be “inefficient?”
There isn't 20 different kinds of peanut butter in creamy, crunchy, smokey, or bacony etc. styles.
-
Capitalism is not good for creating wealth forever. Just like Feudalism before it, it will reach (has reached?) a point where instead of aiding the productive forces it actually begins slowing them down. "Rapid economic growth" is also not the end goal of society, this should be clearer now than ever, as the climate catastrophe is nearing. Your examples of "non-capitalist" countries are a bit bad, as they are both facing economic warfare from the rest of the world.
-
Would those social democracies exist as they are now without the threat from the Soviet Union and their local communists? Could they exist everywhere, or only where they have access to cheap resources and labor from developing countries? Will they keep existing as the contradictions of capitalism keep intensifying?
-
Majority also do not want social democracy, should you stop advocating for it and default to the median political ideology? People will not spontaneously start to want communism, it requires huge amounts of work.
Extra question: depends on what you mean by work with, and on the communists and social democrats in question.
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.
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).
Thanks, I think I can find a lot of common understanding with this viewpoint.
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.
This is great. To the point. Reminds of of some of Chomsky's radio appearances.
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.
-
Those countries you uphold as "the best in the world" are still living off of the exploitation of the global south. All of your other assertions fail to account for what the global proletariat actually wants. You presume to speak for all workers and that makes most of this irrelevant.
Sweden and Norway gives 1% of its GDP as foreign aid, that's billions of dollars. They are not perfect of course, but thats the result of unhindered neoliberalism mostly, which we are opposed to. I dont know mostly what workers in India or Brazil want, but I dont think majority of Indian workers or South African workers want communism, otherwise they would vote for communist parties. They dont even vote for social-democratic parties, which is why Bolsonaro and Modi are ruling. I think Lula might win this time, but he is a social-democrat not a communist.
People in the global south vote for socialists and communists all the time, actually. They keep getting murdered by the CIA and replaced by US-friendly dictators. There's an extremely long list on Wikipedia of these "interventions" where communists have been murdered by the US to stop their popular reform.
How is a country giving away 1% of GDP (based on wealth gained off the global south) different from a billionaire giving away 1% of their wealth stolen from workers?
Just giving partials of the stolen wealth back doesn't make you good, only slightly less worse.
I dont know if like all the wealth that Norway or Sweden has is stolen. Norway is mostly oil wealth. Sweden has a huge automotive industry, IKEA etc. The w orkers in Sweden also produce wealth.
Even with what they have built in terms of export, Norway has the largest (maybe second largest?) sovereign wealth fund and invest within other companies which absolutely earn off the exploitation from the global south.
In regards to their oil wealth, Nordic countries because of this. So their wealth has been built on the destruction of the environment (because their wealth has been built on the export of oil consumption) which is going to disproportionately effect the global south.
In addition to this, they benefit economically from their position in the imperial order and being able to more freely trade with countries who do the more apparent leg work of imperialism and exploitation.
Yeah, they do, and majorly sell it to eu. How come eu is so rich, history will never find out I guess. Also why oil prices are what they are? Edit: I’m not attacking you for thinking that norway is great for its people, sure would be nice if everywhere was like scandinavia. I just don’t believe that it’s probable, more likely absent of militant leftist movement scandinavia will collapse into usa copy, with racism and whole thing
EU returning 1% in (conditional IMF) rent while plundering countless nations for lithium, raw materials and labor at gunpoint.
The NEP and Dengism were attempts to go through a necessary developmental phase to grow the economy. Marx is describing the process of accumulation that needs to happen in order to have sufficient communal wealth to have a functioning socialist state. He’s not describing capitalism positively because he wants to compromise, he’s explaining why history progresses the way it does.
it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world...by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. "Liberation" is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse.
Nevertheless, making any kind of long-term electoral alliance with social democrats was proven a bad idea in 1914 and has been repeatedly re-proven over and over since.
I don't think that necessarily. It was entirely understandable for the KPD to scoff at the idea of a united front with the SPD when the Nazis were gaining prominence, but they probably shouldn't have in hindsight.
They were right the SPD were wrong. That is the only takeaway from this. If they had aligned with the SPD it would have simply maintained the material conditions that enabled the rise of the Nazis.
Your points make a lot of sense. It's just that even communism cannot hold, as the USSR collapsed and Maoist China abandoned full govt control. So just as it is a struggle against bad actors with communism, it is also with social democracy, which has to be protected, usually by eliminating all barriers to democracy. In all opinion polls, people want higher minimum wage, more progressive taxes, better social safety net etc. But in actual polls, due to all kinds of mischief, real democracy cannot prevail.
My main issue is that I don't like communism as understood as government control, burueacrat telling how much to produce etc. Like I really do not want to live in a North Korea style country. Maybe that's not communism as you want it, but it is communism as it exists/existed.
On specific issues, it is possible to work with social democrats, but they cannot be trusted. When push comes to shove, the vast majority will side with capital.
Well personally speaking, I would never side with big business. The problem of course is that communists must be clear about their alternative. If the communist program is "nationalize everything", I don't see how that is beneficial to me. I would never vote for a right-wing party. If anything, it is usually through undemocratic means that right-wingers get into power, I dont see how it is fair to blame social democrats for that. For example, Keir Starmer calls himself a socialist. It's not fair to blame social-democrats for that kind of dishonesty. There is a spectrum of social democrats, there are definitely groups who are basically capitalists in sheepskins and there are people like me who are OK even with straight up arresting all billionaires.
I don't have the time or energy to make a real effort to address all of the things wrong in this post, but if you're actually arguing in good faith, all I will say is you have a severe lack of knowledge of history as it actually happened instead of idealized propaganda.
That's OK, I admit I'm quite uneducated about history. Definitely there are good reasons why the USSR collapsed, such as due to US aggression, and I know about Cuban sanctions, NK bombing etc. My main point is that bad actors will attempt to destroy both communism AND social-democracy. So the fact that social-democracy is in decline is not proof that social democracy is inherently prone to failure. Like all good things, it has to be protected against aggression from big business, imperialism etc.
Hey local idiot here, feel free to ignore me if I'm off base. But isn't the point that with a Soc-Dem system that those things you need to protect and fight against are inherent parts of the system that must, paradoxically, also be maintained and supported indefinitely?
I am in favor of workplace democracy, which would kill both big business and imperialism.
Well if everyone is just gonna have worker co-ops then why have a capitalist class at all?
The people managing the co-ops would be capitalist class, if that makes any sense. Its more like expanding the capitalist class to include everyone rather than destroying the capitalist class.
But then doesn't that just leave you back where we started with this social democracy at the mercy of a potentially ascendant and power-hungry capitalist class?
Honestly Im still learning and I dont know how to respond to this. My opinion is that as long as actual democracy is protected(and not the debauched money-corrupted democracy that we have today), as long as society actually operates on the principle of one-man-one-vote, then the moneyed class will have the power commensurate to their demographic position (i.e only. 2-3% of the vote). Of course this is not what is observed in real life, which is why my struggle is entirely about democracy (hence the name social-democracy). A strong democracy will inevitably lead to socialism, but that socialism will not look like DPRK. I cant predict what it will look like, but probably there will be worker co-ops and nationalization of key industries.
What you're talking about is anarcho-syndicalism but with capitalists. This is unstable and will fail because the two systems cannot coexist.
Capitalists are not a necessary component of a business - capital can be mutually owned by all members of a company and democratically controlled. Check out the Mondragon corporation for a kind of loose example of a company organized along those lines.
The DPRK is fine. They have a security state because they are literally 30 minutes away from destruction by NATO at any given time. There are literal nuclear warheads pointed at Pyongyang and NATO has been practicing invasion drills at its border for literally 70 years.
None of these countries have said that they had achieved communism. Stalin once declared that the USSR had achieved socialism with his "socialism in one country" theory, but not that it had achieved communism. These countries are called communist countries because they have the goal of achieving communism not because they have already established it.
Read this: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
I'll read that, thanks.
Stalin once declared that the USSR had achieved socialism with his “socialism in one country” theory, but not that it had achieved communism.
Whats the difference between socialism and communism? Based on the pamphlet you have posted :
==== What will this new social order have to be like?
Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.
It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.
Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods. =====
This seems to describe the Soviet Union quite accurately to me.
1: Capitalism is very good at rapid economic growth in comparison to feudalism and mercantilism, not in general.
2: Social democracy depends on exploitation of third world countries, requires constant struggle to preserve even meager improvements, and most importantly leaves needless and exploitative structures intact. If you support capitalism in any form, your responsibility is to answer the question, "what good does the bourgeoisie do?". Why bother keeping them around at all, especially when they're going to use their outsize wealth and influence to try and destroy everything you worked so hard to build?
3: Popular support can be won, that's essentially the first step.
4: Yes. Social democrats and other leftists don't really become political opponents until we reach the extremely desirable stage where social democrats are the political right and communists the political left. And if that ever happens we will have already accomplished a lot.
grow slowly
growth bad. the west has too much economy already. best be slimmed. central planning is superior in efficiency.
Norway, Sweden
:guffaw: oh yes love to live in Northern Gulf State or Nazihelpers Inc.. Iceland seems alright tho, and that's surely an accident of history
Workers don't want it
this is a great bit keep it up lmao
As much as I wish you were right on that last point, the workers, at least here in America, absolutely do not want communism. A huge slice of the workers would die defending capital from other workers.
The problem here isn't that the workers wouldn't like communism, it's that they've been incredibly thoroughly lied to so that they don't even know what communism is as they denounce it. This isn't communism's fault though, this is our propaganda infrastructure's fault.
You said it yourself. Workers do not oppose the idea of communism, they oppose the word communism. You can spend hours describing the idea of communism to a good-intention worker and they'll nod along in agreement, but you say the word communism and they piss their pants. Workers want communism but by any other name.
touché, however there's still a good chunk of the American proletariat with a taste for boot, willing to die to defend the system that allows others to become billionaires, defending it with "b-but they create jobs" and "you're taking away MY freedom to become a billionaire someday". Good point though.
Is there any evidence that central planning is more efficient? How many workers vote for communist parties?
Holistically looking at an economy, absolutely. Moan about socialist economies' growth lagging behind capitalist ones by a few points all you want, they were still providing far, far superior social services at a fraction of the social cost. Stop thinking about economics on the capitalists' terms. Eternal growth is not the goal, providing for actual needs is.
Millions upon millions of people vote for communist parties. Even more voted for them a couple decades ago. Don't confuse crackdown with democracy.
The economy is already centrally planned, just not with any kind of democratic or popular input.
The problem is that you compare countries that were thoroughly destroyed by the west's colonization, sanctions and war to the west. The USSR caught up to the US in around 70 years despite starting as an agrarian country that was barely industrialized.
You should read more on these countries history and struggles, you'll see that communist countries being slower to develop is a myth. On the contrary, once communists get in power through popular support they get shit done pretty fast despite the capitalists around the world trying to stop them.
Is there any evidence that central planning is more efficient? How many workers vote for communist parties?
Ask South America :party-parenti:
there are generally two types of voters:
the voters who always vote for the same party
the one's who vote for the current government if they and they're family had a good last 3 months and the runner up if they didn't
the issues they're voting on have little effect on their decision either way it's almost random.
central planning achieved huge success, with it's issues being primarily confined to people getting yelled at because their boss screwed up
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
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.
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.
Well part of it is how I've seen social democracy falter and fail into neoliberalism in action here in Greece. To me, beyond the third world aspect, it's also about making something permanent, and evolving society to the next stage. Neoliberalism etc always make a comeback because the underlying relations that produced them have not gone away. Feudalism has been done with, right? It's a thing of the past in developed western countries. There is no real danger of sliding back to it. I'd really like the same thing to happen with capitalism, but with social democracy, it's always right around the corner. The transitional program to get there will actually look in some respects kinda like social democracy, and there is a lot of room to talk about what it would entail.
I think there is merit to 1), it might be true that some countries would do better to industrialize. It is interesting how the best example of this, China, would have become India if they had not had Maoism first. But nations should not be forced to do so in order to survive in an imperialist market where their labor would be exploited by the West. The self determination of nations is important and capitalism is directly opposed to that.
I will bring the revolution t h rough posting, just you wait. wait and se..
