Cowbee [he/they]

Pretty much!

I don’t think it’s “growing,” more that as society continues to get worse people’s outlooks grow darker.

Quite supportive! Though it isn’t accurate to ever say the Revolution calmed down, IMO, the USSR was under constant siege.

You give it away when you said the US isn’t really Capitalist. It’s pretty clear that, at minimum, you haven’t studied Marxism in any capacity. You also are quick to dismiss evidence and even quicker to firehose a bunch of claims without any sources too, so that doesn’t help your case either.

I really don’t think you’re in a position to tell China what their economic model is. They aren’t a hybrid between Capitalism and Socialism, but firmly Socialist, because their large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, while the Private Sector is dominated by small industry and self-proprietors. This is straight from Marx, who believed that markets themselves centralize and therefore build up the large industry public ownership thrives on.

Again, if you want to learn more about Socialism and Communism, I am more than willing to walk you through theory. That would be a much more productive conversation, I would think. However, you have a very clear tendency to speak confidently on matters you have not studied, such as claiming China is a “hybrid system” just because it follows classical Marxism.

You also rapid-fired more unsourced claims, so I’ll address those:

1. China is a democracy. It is not a liberal democracy, where multiple parties compete, but a Socialist democracy. You can watch a quick video from Chinese state media on how it functions, or how elections work. Over 90% of Chinese citizens approve of their government, and the majority believes they have a democratic impact on policy, at a higher rate than the US.

2. Social Credit doesn’t really exist in China. There’s a version for businesses, but not the often memed about version of a totalitarian spy state.

3. The US has more CCTVs per Capita than the PRC. A large factor is due to China’s lower crime rates, due to having better working class protections and safety nets.

So, to return, China is Socialist. The presence of markets are only with respect to where Marxists would want markets, as Marxists believe you must develop out of markets, not simply make them illegal and punish them. If you approve of this system of publicly owning and planning firms as they get larger and leaving small businesses and cooperatives free to develop into these large firms before aquiring them, you might just be a Communist!

Well, seems like your intentions have backfired, and by not putting in any effort, even if you were right, you ended up making my points look more valid. I do recommend people read and look into my sources, hopefully your advice to do so helps create more Socialists.

Yes, I know how the 2/3rds data was gathered, and I am aware of the other countries listed there. It doesn’t invalidate my point, and the data is still sound.

On one final question, what do you mean by a rabbit hole of “starvation and misery?” Countries adopting Socialism got more food secure after doing so. Take the PRC, for example, which recently eliminated extreme poverty in a Socialist economy. If 15 million people per year are dying due to poverty, sounds like we need to move beyond Capitalism and into Socialism.

Wikipedia isn’t a source, Wikipedia references sources. I frequently use Wikipedia links instead of the source itself because it’s western controlled, and therefore less likely to be seen as pro-Communist “propaganda” by people like yourself. Either way, though, the sources I linked are still sound, you’ve done nothing to disprove them and have provided no sources of your own, other than numbers you admitted to have found “on your own,” ie they came to you in a dream.

Out of curiousity, why are you continuing this conversation? You’re only further making my argument look better. Is it for self-satisfaction? A genuine wish to debate? Then why not bring at least one source, or try to counter anything that I’ve said. As it stands, based on the upvotes and downvotes, you’re the only one being laughed at here.

Not at all, I provided peer reviewed sources and primary accounts. You provided exactly nothing. If you’re going to throw a fit about sources even Wikipedia uses, the least you could do is find a source of your own.

Or, here me out, you could stop trying to fight facts that are uncomfortable for you to learn. Much better for you in the long run, I’ll say.

I produced peer reviewed sources, news articles, primary sources, and more, and you produced none. It was worth my time, though, so if anyone wanders in they can learn, even if you’re determined not to.

Essentially, your entire comment relies on the following errors:

1. Having no clue what Capitalism is

Capitalism is a Mode of Production by which Private Property forms the principle aspect of the economy. Examples of Capitalist economies include the Russian Federation, United States, France, Norway, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, the UK, Germany, Canada, etc. Calling the US a “plutocracy” or whatever you want doesn’t change that it’s Capitalist, and relies on Private Property as the driving factor of the economy. The government bailing out wealthy Capitalists is Capitalism in action, the state is subservient to the Private Sector in Capitalist systems.

2. Having no clue what Socialism is

Socialism is a Mode of Production by which Public Property forms the principle aspect of the economy. Examples of Socialist economies include the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, etc. Socialism is not when the government does stuff or provides safety nets, the US is not a “hybrid” because it has a post office. The government in Socialist countries often lets business owners fail, see the Evergrande collapse in China, or the punishment of Jack Ma.

3. Pretending Capitalism isn’t right-wing

Capitalism is right-wing. Violence perpetuated in the interest of Capitalist aims, such as the United States massacring countries that go against its Imperialism, is righwing violence. An easy example is the US slaughtering 1 million Iraqis in order to gain access to their oil.

4. Making numbers up and providing 0 sources for them.

As for the “making numbers up” part, you said you “did the math yourself.” You provided no sources of any of that, basically meaning you made it up, and redefined what left and right mean in a political context. It’s deliberately dishonest.

Now to address your claims:

I already showed how the economy grew rapidly in the USSR, yet disparity lowered. Do you think these economic gains vanished into thin-air? No. Instead, it came to the people, which is why life expectancy doubled in Russia and China after adopting Socialism. They did not immediately get to compete with the US Empire’s stolen wealth, but their lives rapidly improved over the Tsarist system and the nationalist system.

The government in the USSR was not a “ruling class.” See the wealth disparity metrics, they lowered. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest was about a factor of 10 in the USSR, unlike Tsarist Russia and the Russian Federation, where that number is in the many, many, many thousands and millions. Poverty went drastically upward in the Russian Federation, and 2/3rds of Russians wish Socialism had remained. By far the biggest elimination of poverty in human history came from the USSR and PRC, and it isn’t close, while Capitalism perpetuates poverty and Imperialism.

Again, I can help you learn more if you want, but making numbers up and trying to redefine words into something else in order to prove a point doesn’t help anyone. You aren’t convincing anyone here, and you’ll never convince me either when I’ve done the effort of actually digging into the facts, like finding the 15 million figure you just ignored. You’re welcome to learn, again I have plenty of sources and have done the time to read them and read up on Marxist-Leninist theory and history.

See, this is what I mean, you’re an unintentionally very funny person. Using the 100 million figure comes from the long debunked Black Book of Communism, which included Nazis killed during World War II, was made before Yeltsin opened up the Soviet Archives, which even right-wing historians see as the most accurate, and where the author Robert Conquest literally made up numbers in order to get to the 100 million figure, a nice round scary number.

Moreover, you are far understating the deaths caused by Capitalism. 15 million people die per year of preventable poverty, as a direct result of Capitalism. even if we believe in the already laughably debunked 100 million figure, Capitalism’s bloody toll already eclipses the supposed death toll of Communism in a century in less than a decade.

Further still, you are exclusively using the Nazis, not all far-right violence. Churchill caused the deaths of 4 million Bengalis, the US invaded Iraq and killed 1 million people and destroyed their critical infrastrucure on false-pretenses of “WMD” that we know they knew better in order to grab their oil, 7 million people died in the 1990s when Capitalism replaced Socialism in the USSR, half a million were killed or maimed by Agent Orange in Vietnam, millions died from US bombings in Korea and Vietnam, and so, so many more.

Communism, on the other hand, has brought massive improvements in life expectancies, such as doubling in the USSR and PRC, massive jumps in literacy rates, robust safety nets like free and high quality healthcare and education, full employment, childcare, lower retirement ages, and much, much more. It is Communism to thank for the massive reduction in poverty over the last century, thanks to the USSR and PRC, while if only Capitalist countries are checked that number goes up, as in more impoverished. Communist countries also ended famines in countries where famine was common beforehand, like Agrarian China and Tsarist Russia.

See how the Soviets democratized their economy (also read Soviet Democracy ):

Lowered wealth disparity dramatically:

While maintaining one of the most rapidly developing economies in the world (also read *[Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union) ):

I recommend reading Blackshirts and Reds, believing Communism to be just as bad as Nazism, or somehow worse, is a form of Nazi apologia. The truth is that the Nazis were unquestionably worse, and that by trying to minimize their evil you’re doing the work of fascists for them. The Communists were the ones who defeated the Nazis and stopped the holocaust, 80% of total World War II combat was on the Eastern Front., without the Red Army the Nazis likely would have won.

If you want to learn, I am more than happy to help. I keep an introductory Marxist-Leninist Reading List and can help dispel some of the outdated Red Scare mythology that evidently you still believe. However, if you’re going to go around calling people “commies” and saying they are worse than the Nazis, then all you’ll get is a bunch of essays and articles, books, videos, etc debunking your claims, and a bit of laughter that someone still uses the word “commie” as an insult.

Most of what’s reported about the DPRK is bullshit. It’s closer to Cuba than it is to, say, the mythical religious state that worships the party and eats rats that is often reported as.

To be clear, nobody actually thinks Kim Jong Un doesn’t need to use the restroom. You can say anything you want about the DPRK and people will believe you, which ends up being a clickbait race for tabloid media (which is where stories like the no peeing thing come from).

You’re more than welcome to learn more, but calling people “commie” without a hint of irony will probably just be really funny for everyone else.

Reddit is like one big instance, subreddits are our communuties. However, federated instances can visit the subreddits (communities) of other instances. This leads to decentralization of power, and cool niche instances that don’t all need to have everything.

As for politics, most people here are going to be more political than Reddit, as coming here instead of staying on Reddit is an ideological choice, often times.

Yep!

https://slrpnk.net/post/11069853

That’s where they discuss it. You can check my modlog to see it in action, lol

Yes. I am a Marxist-Leninist, dirty commie, pinko, whatever you want to call me. You’re on a site made by “commies,” there are a lot of us here.

The Left stands for some form of collectivized property ownership, while the Right stands for individual property ownership. Ie, the Left stands broadly for Socialism while the Right broadly stands for Capitalism. These are diametrically opposed.

The characterization of the left and right you give, conflating taxes with leftism and business with rightism, is an extremely narrow view of Political Economy that sees Capitalism as the only existing option. This is wrong, and confusing for everyone else.

As for Orwell, I wouldn’t really give much credit to that sex abusing chauvanist. He is celebrated in the West as someone claiming to be on the Left, while working with British intelligence agencies and making lists of suspected Jews and communists, both of which he hated. Everyone should read On Orwell in my opinion.

Violence is a tool, and a necessary one, sadly. Millitant organization has only ever been the way the Working Classes have been able to gain real victories. Read Blackshirts and Reds and listen to Blowback, Revolution is the only genuine path that has liberated the working classes.

Spot-on! Just look at the historical revisionism surrounding the roles of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, the US mythologizes the Civil Rights Movement and erases the more millitant actions that forced their hand. See the shunning of Nelson Mandela for appreciating the aid Fidel Castro and Cuba at large had sent, followed by the revision of Mandela himself in popular western view. It’s through these distortions and bluntings of real, working class victories fought and paid in blood in ways that prevent the modern working class from following in their predecessor’s footprints.