- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism… while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn’t do it well.
But 2 large economies tried to impliment communism… while engaged in a cold war against much more entrenched ideologies, while having corrupt leaders and they didn’t do it well.
And while - which I, personally, think is the biggest reason - starting from pre-capitalist economies, thus materially having to do what capitalism did (rapid industrialisation, disenfranchisement of peasantry, accumulation of capital), and ultimately following what Marxism would have guessed: Their ideology forming around their material reality of having to accumulate capital from labour while trading on the world market. So it basically became its own kind of welfare state/social democratic capitalism, with a bit of “but communism will arrive eventually, we promise!”
Once that material dynamic is entrenched, no amount of ideological purity can simply correct it from the top, you can’t change material society by implementing an ideal onto a reality. It has to develop materially and dialectically, through the process of the old system failing (in unbearable ways), necessitating revolutionary changes.
Ones doing quite well, hence why countries are abandoning the US as a trade partner and going for it instead. Dengism is the solution to the failed ideal that you can take an agrarian preindustrial society straight to communism. And given all essential sectors are worker owned, it seems to be working.
There’s also been quite a few smaller socialist and anarchist societies that have existed under similar external influences. Almost like capitalism is tied up with ideological warmongering or something.
I feel like “socialism and anarchsim always fail or lose to capitalists” isn’t the flex you think it is.
The EZLN is still going. So is Rojava.
What’s that Churchill said about being the worst thing except for everything else that’s been tried?
Churchill was a genocidal war criminal on par with Hitler, he’s not someone one should ever quote: unless you’re just okay with Indians not being people.
ad hominem
Genocide isn’t an ad hominem attack. Hitler wishes he got Churchill’s numbers.
The ultimate genocider could claim “1 + 1 = 2”: that doesn’t make it false. Who they are is irrelevant to their argument, and that’s a classic ad hominem fallacy. Learn to respect logic.
Churchill said that about democracy, interesting you interchange the two.
Something that’s incorrect
Welfare capitalism was better than the other ones.
Because it’s half way to socialism?
It’s the most left of the right-wing scope that is pro-capitalism, but doesn’t address the underlying contradiction and will inevitably backslide to the right. It’ll take longer, but will eventually side with fascism as capitalism historically does
It is already socialism by definition. It just isn’t an eastern dictatorship.
Let’s go gambling!
We’re now trying pump and dump capitalism
Don’t look at what came before mercantile capitalism.
Social welfare capitalism is a good mix but over time the social aspect got burried
Social welfare capitalism is good in theory. But social welfare is in direct opposition to capitalism, and there is no way to actually contain the corrupting power of capitalism. The social aspect will always get buried.
It wont get burried if its enshrined and untouchable to make it worse
As current events have proven nothing is untouchable even if enshrined
Just look at life expectancies. Countries with social capitalism do the best and not by a little. By arguing everyone is the same, it’s really supporting the worst.
