goddam those comments are so bad. I see so many Nazis trying to buddy up with socialists and socdems, does Hakim have alt-right viewers?

At the risk of getting banned or flamed, but like, isnt that literally what Cuba and NK do? I already made a thread about this but, like, isnt the entire Cuban and NK economy controlled by the state who manage and plan the economy?

EDIT: I will make a thread asking about this

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am in favor of workplace democracy, which would kill both big business and imperialism.

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.

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?

Thanks, I assure you I'm asking in good faith.

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.

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.

why cant they just do this voting online?

Thanks, I think I can find a lot of common understanding with this viewpoint.

Is there any evidence that central planning is more efficient? How many workers vote for communist parties?

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.

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 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.

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.