As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.
As a queer person (agender) with a conservative dad, I don’t get why he says he wants to go back to the 1950s. What was so special back then besides his reasoning that times were simpler? I feel like it would be harder for me then as a queer person.
Ah it’s always the same with those ideologically blinded people.
Capitalism is inherently bad blah blah
Socialism can never work blah blah
It’s all bullshit. Capitalism does not matter, socialism does not matter. How we call it does not matter. What matters is that a society is healthy, sustainable and prospering.
The main problem of all theories is the confrontation with reality - each set of values or ideology is as much worth as the people who (supposedly) follow it.
In any system we ever built, there are greedy, corrupt, powerful people, who like shit, always somehow end up swimming at the top. And then everything begins to rot.
This is just you replacing sound economic analysis with vibes-based idealism, ironically you’re divorcing yourself from reality while claiming others need to see it better. A quick example is that socialism has resulted in far lower inequality while maintaining stable growth than capitalism has, yet you pretend they are the same in disparity. Connect with reality.
deleted by creator
Edited
This is nonsense, again.
The Soviet economy worked very well, and was one of the fastest growing economies of the 20th century. The difference between the wealthiest and the poorest was about 5 times, compared to hundreds to thousands in capitalist countries (and even more).
The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, the large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. They are pragmatic and learned, which is why they maintained socialism.
Yes, the PRC is proof that socialism works astoundingly well.
Again, you return to vibes-based nonsense. The Soviet Union was more democratic than capitalist countries, and the PRC is as well.
Edited
I’m not trying to be mean here, but I really don’t care about anecdotes. When I say that the Soviet economy was strong and maintained some of the highest rates of growth in the world all while having a lower disparity, it’s because I’ve done the reading and research to see that. A quick article like *Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowans, or a full book like Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski or Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti all do a far better job than anecdotes at seeing what conditions were actually like systemically.
I’m also not saying the Soviet Union was perfect. There indeed were issues with black markets, misplanning, etc, but they didn’t outweigh the dramatic benefits the system provided. It’s no wonder that the majority of people who lived through the Soviet system wish it had remained. With the reintroduction of capitalism in the 90s, an estimated 7 million people died due to a loss in safety nets and a dramatic increase in poverty around the world.
The achievements of the USSR and its failings need to be contextualized in the fact that, unlike western countries, the USSR was a developing country. With it, however, came around the developed world a mass expansion in safety nets in order to provide what the USSR was already providing for its people. With the fall of the USSR, wealth disparity around the world began to climb more rapidly than ever:
As for the PRC, “Socialist Market Economy” is the official term for its economy. The fact that you admit to never hearing that term before means you haven’t actually done much research into it. State Capitalism refers to countries where private ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries, but with strong state influence, like Bismark’s Germany, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In the PRC, it’s public property that governs the large firms and key industries.
The system overall is called Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, or SWCC. Here’s a study guide for it, in more depth. The key takeaway is that private property and markets existed in Mao’s era, in the USSR, etc, the modern PRC isn’t very different from those in terms of where the balance of power lies. Trying to plan all of the small, underdeveloped industry can often slow growth, while planning and controlling the large firms and key industries is not only more effective economically, also retains proletarian control over the economy. As the small and medium firms are developed through market forces, they can be better intrgrated into central planning and have their property gradually sublimated. It’s Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of modern China, also called Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought. So yes, China is absolutely socialist.
Edited
First off, I apologize if I came off as hostile. That’s not really my intent, I try to correct misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding Marxism and Marxism-Leninism when I see them.
Overall, the Marxist view on markets is that at lower stages of development, they can serve a progressive role, but at higher stages they impede progress and even turn into imperialism, as we see in Europe and the US, ie the global north. Capitalism is best described as a system by which private property is the principle aspect of an economy, ie the large firms and key industries are privately owned. In such a condition, this means private property also has control of the state, so markets will largely play a reactionary role in exploiting and oppressing the masses. Socialism can make use of limited markets while retaining state control of the large firms and key industries to get the good growth of markets in lower development while taking advantage of the numerous benefits of central planning at higher stages in development.
Capitalism itself leads to inequality and fascism. There isn’t a way to escape this, there is no such thing as a static capitalism. It either forces imperialism outwardly, is stuck at simple reproduction in imperialized countries (rather than reproduction on an expanded scale), or turns to fascism, if it doesn’t have a socialist revolution.
As for the PRC, they are firmly Marxist-Leninist, specifically Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought, which is largely a synthesis of ML-Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, itself an addendum to MZT. Their system is firmly socialist, their use of markets and private property is in a controlled manner that can only be controlled as such in a primarily planned economy. Without understanding this, you won’t be able to see why the PRC is on the rise and is so stable, while Social Democracies in Europe are on the decline.
You’re welcome for the links. If you want a standard reading list for Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory one you can check out if you ever get the interest. You’ll be able to better understand the USSR, it’s strengths and weaknesses, and why the PRC is currently succeeding.
Edited
deleted by creator
Edited
Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, etc. Socialism works.
China 100% counts as socialist. The Gang of Four diverged from Marxism-Leninism into ultraleft dogmatism. Ultraleftism is not “pure socialism,” there is no such thing as “pure” socialism, capitalism, etc. The PRC under Mao had markets, private property, etc, as did the USSR. As a consequence, the modern CPC is course-corrected to a standard Marxist-Leninist outlook. Both Mao and Stalin are seen as 70% good by the modern CPC.
The claims of “authoritarianism” are the repression of capitalists.
Yes, I’ve read Capital, volume 1. I’m on volume 2 right now. More importantly, I’ve read a ton of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and far more Marxist authors, all who speak about Dialectical Materialism and socialism, how to bring about communism, and more, all of which you won’t find in Capital. I’m skeptical that you’ve even read Volume 1, to be honest, your understanding of Marxism is incredibly poor. Using “I’ve read Capital” as an “I win the argument” tool is incredibly poor rhetoric, if you have a good argument, make it, don’t appeal to your own authority.
Yes, political theory isn’t a religion, you seem to think it is though.
deleted by creator
Edited
Could not agree more. I’m a democratic socialist. I firmly believe that the ideas of that ideology, properly implemented, can drastically improve the standard of living for a huge percentage of the population.
I live in a country where our democratic socialist party is fantastically corrupt, lazy and completely bereft of any motivation to do anything that doesn’t directly benefit themselves. Consequently, I don’t support them. Results over ideology is an important mantra no matter what you believe.
All socialism is democratic, “democratic socialism” normally refers to reformist socialism. The corruption, in that case, makes sense, as reformism is usually conceding to the status quo.