You're viewing part of a thread.
Socialism being temporary never was meant to mean it was supposed to be a short term sacrifice, but an improvement on Capitalism and with the continual goal of improving production to get to the stage where Communism can be accomplished.
That doesn't happen either. You get "Communism with Chinese characteristics". You get the USSR that falls apart and was never really communist to begin with. You get Cuba with great food and nice looking old cars, but in an otherwise isolated and somewhat dire state and in consistent poverty. You wind up with Russia with sham elections and an international alliance of creeps including North Korea. You get czars and emperors masquerading as "presidents". It's all a worthless facade: still authoritarianism but comrade-chic; dictatorship but by che guevara wannabes.
I don't like capitalism either, and I think Marx's critiques of it are well founded. He just doesn't have a prescription: exactly like many other analysts throughout history and various wanton technocrats today.
I'll stick with democracy until the cossacks come knocking at the door thank you very much, and I'll do it while reading whatever I please instead of useless theory.
EDIT: I think the actual prescription is labor unions, worker protections, state administered social welfare and safety nets, etc...monopoly busting...all the new deal stuff basically. At least we have a historical example to point to of that shit working.
That doesn't happen either. You get "Communism with Chinese characteristics". You get the USSR that falls apart and was never really communist to begin with. You get Cuba with great food and nice looking old cars, but in an otherwise isolated and somewhat dire state and in consistent poverty. You wind up with Russia with sham elections and an international alliance of creeps including North Korea. You get czars and emperors masquerading as "presidents". It's all a worthless facade: still authoritarianism but comrade-chic; dictatorship but by che guevara wannabes.
So 1. You get drastic improvements on material conditions for the vast majority of people as opposed to life under the nationalist KMT
-
You get a doubling of life expectancy, massive increases in literacy rates, housing rates, free education, and consistent growth in a Socialist economy until it liberalized and collapsed
-
You get a functioning country doing the best it can for its people despite a brutal blockade designed to punish the people for throwing off their fascist dictator and slave society
Not sure what your point is here.
I don't like capitalism either, and I think Marx's critiques of it are well founded. He just doesn't have a prescription: exactly like many other analysts throughout history and various wanton technocrats today.
He does, did, and I linked the sources. The fact that you're ignoring this directly in spite of said sources is incredibly dishonest.
I'll stick with democracy until the cossacks come knocking at the door thank you very much, and I'll do it while reading whatever I please instead of useless theory.
Capitalism cannot be truly democratic, only Socialism can be. If you don't want to read theory that is your personal choice to make, but that also makes all of your opinions of said theory worthless.
He does, did, and I linked the sources.
You're right, he does have a prescription...it's just one that doesn't work in practice despite being tried over and over again for more than a century at this point.
Capitalism cannot be truly democratic, only Socialism can be.
Sure seems like this country at least gets a say in voting for who runs it, unlike many, many socialist examples (with great reading scores! yay!) where they are not only not doing that, but it is prohibited structurally (or behind the scenes through radioactive tea administration).
Also, don't bend my ear with all the grand achievements of socialist countries that are decidedly not democratic and then pay lip service to democracy.
You're right, he does have a prescription...it's just one that doesn't work in practice despite being tried over and over again for more than a century at this point.
It does and has worked. What do you believe is sufficient to decide if something does or does not work?
Sure seems like this country at least gets a say in voting for who runs it, unlike many, many socialist examples (with great reading scores! yay!) where they are not only not doing that, but it is prohibited structurally (or behind the scenes through radioactive tea administration).
Socialist countries do in fact have elections, voting, and so forth.
Also, don't bend my ear with all the grand achievements of socialist countries that are decidedly not democratic and then pay lip service to democracy.
Why not? Why do you say Socialist countries aren't democratic?
Why not? Why do you say Socialist countries aren’t democratic?
What countries are you counting?
The former USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, and on and on do not hold elections.
The northern European (and other socialist-lite countries) that are closer to what I would want for America didn't abolish capitalism... So...
The USSR, PRC, Cuba, and DPRK all hold elections and practice(ed) some form of democracy.
They were not structured like Capitalist elections, but nonetheless had and have elections.
Social Democracy depends on Imperialism and Capitalism in the global north, is inherently unsustainable, and sees sliding of worker protections and rights over time, just like what happened following the New Deal in America. Reading theory makes it clear why.
The USSR, PRC, Cuba, and DPRK all hold elections and practice(ed) some form of democracy.
Lol, alrighty we're done here. 😆
Edit: The only time tankies believe in voting is when they're on lemmy hitting the downvote icon on the deep posts. 😜
Not even checking the links? It's wikipedia, lol
They're sham elections. You telling me that fucking haircut in the DPRK is God emperor of North Korea because he has some mandate from the masses? He's atop the throne because he's the son of the last blowhard.
-