Serious question: has communism ever been proved to work at scale? (not communist regimes, the communist ideology)
I’ve never come across anyone who calls themselves a “Stalinist.” Maybe that’s what some horseshoe theorists call Marxist-Leninists.
I must confess to have stealing this meme from elsewhere and didn’t even notice that lol
The only people I call Stalinist are people who intentionally go about delaying or postponing things. They gotta quit stalin for time.
The modern revisionists and reactionaries call us Stalinists, thinking that they insult us and, in fact, that is what they have in mind. But, on the contrary, they glorify us with this epithet; it is an honor for us to be Stalinists for while we maintain such a stand the enemy cannot and will never force us to our knees.
What would it even mean?
Kinda like Marxism-Leninism, but in a one-man cult-of-personality police state and if you as much as look funny at the leader, you get disappeared/shot?
In other words, what’s happening to the USA minus the Marxism-Leninism?
I swear bro the next capitalism actually works, bro trust me, bro without capitalism you wouldn’t have iphones bro.
I love the iphone thing because they are literally all manufactured in the most successful socialist country still existing.
Yeah, and the most capitalist part in them is the outrageous price tag and planned obsolescence. But yeah, keep talking about “muh technological development”
Stalinists, Maoists and Socialists (at least the reformist ones) are pro-capital, just under a different form. They love their commodity production and wage labor…
Liberalism and capitalism is the best system in the world.
For the bourgeoisie, perhaps, but only temporarily. We can see that out of every country right now that it’s the Socialist PRC that is making the most dramatic and rapid improvements and growth.
The PRC is a capitalist country but not liberal. They have good growth but they lack a lot of the freedoms we enjoy in liberal society.
Also its funny to me how when you wanted to pick which system was “the best” you selected economic growth.
The PRC is Socialist, large firms and key industries are firmly in the public sector, while the private sector is largely cooperatives, sole proprietorships, and small firms. This is classically Marxist. I elaborate more on this here.
Economic growth is merely one vector. The PRC saw the largest reduction in poverty on the planet, has strong democratic control from the people, very high approval rates, high confidence in improving conditions, and regularly increasing purchasing power for workers. The PRC is also leading the green revolution, and isn’t Imperialist like the liberal countries you claim to work so well.
There’s a huge difference between capitalism and oligarchy. What we have is oligarchy. All the worst parts of capitalism. 19th century robber-baron “capitalism.”
❌❌❌
Capitalist economic systems will inevitably lead to oligarchy
The “oligarchy” of today is not distinct from Capitalism, but Capitalism at a later stage in its life.
Capitalism today looks nothing like capitalism in the 1950s. Back then, a family could easily survive on the income of one person. With money left over to pay for college education, a car and a house.
That is not the situation today, where most Americans have NO retirement savings. Unless you’re redefining what capitalism IS, then that’s a problem caused by the people in charge (oligarchs).
I haven’t met any soc dems who think capitalism can be saved. Most agree that it can only be contained. Just look how successful the Nordic countries are. They have successful companies and still have billionaires, but the rich are heavily taxed. And if the rich threatens to leave with their assets, they will still be taxed heavily for doing so.
The Nordic Model has Private Property as its principle aspect, ie in control of large firms and key industry. As a consequence, Private Capital has a dominant role in the state, and though labor organization slows this process, there has been a steady winding down of Worker Protections, gradually.
More damningly, though, is the fact that the Nordic Countries are reliant upon the same Imperialist machine of extraction from the Global South as the rest of the West. The Nordics enjoy their cushy lifestyles on the backs of brutal labor in the Global South, almost like an employer-employee relationship at an international level.
More damningly, though, is the fact that the Nordic Countries are reliant upon the same Imperialist machine of extraction from the Global South as the rest of the West. The Nordics enjoy their cushy lifestyles on the backs of brutal labor in the Global South, almost like an employer-employee relationship at an international level.
That is a good point usually raised. But, developed countries do not have jurisdiction on developing countries on how to treat their workers and what wages to set, and vice versa. Unless there is harmonised and legally binding rules and regulations for everyone in the world to follow, then this issue won’t even exist.
Imperialist countries absolutely dictate policy of countries they imperialize. “Aid” and other mechanisms come with stipulations surrounding a reduction in economic sovereignty. The goal of Imperialist countries is to extract, they aren’t just taking what’s being offered, but directly stacking the deck in their favor as much as possible, and doing so with vast millitary and financial leverage. That’s the entire purpose of the IMF and WTO.
Michael Hudson’s Super-Imperialism is a good read, even if I don’t agree with everything in it, it does a good job of laying out some of the mechanics of Imperialism.
But the Nordic countries are not imperialists. The last time that Nordic countries had an empire was like, 600 years ago, long before the invention of capitalism. Some wealthy countries now like Poland and Ireland did not even have empires and were in fact colonial subjects. Dominican Republic is on track to achieved developed status in 2030 if things go right.
You’re confusing Imperialism as the modern development in Capitalism with older Colonialism. To put it in another way, the lives of citizens in the Nordics are funded through the hyper-exploitation of the Global South.
You are just making up definitions now but that is irrelevant because, like I said, unless there is legally binding global rules then this won’t be a problem. But there aren’t any. You obviously never heard, nor have been in a corrupt, poor country whose government abuse human rights. And then when the international community condemn the offending government, that government typically say other countries don’t have jurisdiction or to respect their own sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is the reality of lawless and anarchic international relations.
I’m not making anything up, definition or otherwise. I’m following Lenin’s outlining of Imperialism as explained in Imperalism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. However, given that you aren’t going to read Hudson’s Super-Imperialism that outlines the mechanisms by which Imperialist countries exert sovereignty over Imperialized ones, I’ll offer a brief explanation:
Imperialist countries export Capital to Imperialized countries, with “aid” in the form of loans with specific policy stipulations. These stipulations include mechanisms like only going to projects that are directly profitable, meaning these countries are forced into exporting their raw materials like rare earth or cash crops like coffee.
At the same time, agriculture is left underdeveloped, and there is labor flight from the rural to the urban areas in order to produce enough profitable goods to pay back the loans, forcing these countries to import food, usuallly from countries like the US that subsidize their agriculture to undercut developing countries. All of their output goes into Imperialist pocketd, rather than their own, and they pay the same Imperialists for the food they need and can’t develop.
It’s this unequal exchange that leads to political strife and underdevelopment. It is not the fault of the underdeveloped countries, but the Imperalist countries for holding back development and leveraging their financial and industrial Capital to carve out of the Global South.
The Nordics, as willing Imperialists in this equation, could not exist as they do without being ruthless exploiters of the Global South. They directly perpetuate this process because they need to, like all Imperialist countries they are parasitic.
The Nordic countries are importing cheap Labour from the global south and then whining about the people not being white enough.
How about, “are anyone of you qualified to do open heart surgery on an entire country?”
i never heard this one.
Where do I fit in, I want capitalism with massive regulation and oversight and no corporation protection for board members?
Sounds like SocDem, the problem with that is you want to give Capitalists all of the control of key industries and large firms yet somehow not also have control of the state.
