Socialism is a transitional mode of production and distribution towards communism, so in a way they are a part of the same process of communist construction.
I guess to be more precise in what they are likely referring to, Americans have associated communism with the specific characteristics, real or made up, of previous or existing socialist states.
So when someone not educated in Marxist theory tries to make the distinction between “socialism” and “communism,” they’re basically saying “No, we’re not like those scary Russians and Chinese. We want to be like the civilized social democracies in Europe.” In the process they simultaneously:
Misunderstand what socialism and communism are.
Play into the right wing narrative that these countries, and therefore any attempt at communism, would just mean authoritarianism even, not realizing that it is neither a critical part of communism in the abstract nor something Western “democracies” are free of.
Not necessarily maliciously. This is a product of the propaganda we’ve all been exposed to for so long.
Even the word “propaganda” itself has been manipulated by us into a meaningless pejorative over the last 100 years, originally a benign “spreading of ideas”.
The thing is: has Communism ever produced a good example in any country or historical period?
Most religions are also based on some very good principles, but I can’t think of a country where a theocracy produced a good place for people to live. So, I don’t know… there might be a fundamental disconnect between how good the principles are and how badly they adapt to human nature?
Not a critique, please believe me. I really want to be educated on this.
Everywhere communists have taken power has seen dramatic, rapid improvements for the lives of the working classes. Every single time socialism has been solidified, it has worked out for the majority of society.
The thing is: has Communism ever produced a good example in any country or historical period?
Depends on what you consider “good.” You can define good so strictly that no country has ever qualified. You can also define it based on the standards of historically wealthy countries with high standards of living built off of slavery and colonialism. If you do either of those, the answer is probably no.
Otherwise, if you look at socialist systems in comparison to 1) what they had before, and 2) what other options were realistically open to them, the answer is yes.
China had a life expectancy in the 30’s that remained there through the Qing, the warlord period, and the nationalists. As soon as the communists came to power and redistributed the land to the people, life expectancy skyrocketed, doubling within a generation. In spite of those improvements, in 1980 over 90% of the population was still living in extreme poverty, which has now been entirely eradicated.
Vietnam was ruled by a brutal colonial oppressor and fought against a corrupt far-right puppet regime, the communists won and established autonomy, raised standards of living and developed the country, and put down Pol Pot, stopping the Cambodian genocide.
Russia under the tsar was drafting hordes of people to be thrown into the pointless meat grinder of WWI, rather than focusing on domestic development and industrialization. Even when there were reforms, the “moderates” were still insistent on staying in the war and reclaiming lost territory. Once Lenin came to power, he took the L to get out of the war and refocused on domestic development and industrialization. Standards of living rose, and the USSR rapidly transformed from a feudal backwater into a global superpower, even with bearing the brunt of the costs of WWII (which they were only able to do because of that development).
Cuba had a corrupt gangster state that was a puppet of the US. Once the communists took over, they conducted a very successful literacy campaign and trained so many doctors that they’ve not only provided medical care to their own people, but also sent them abroad to help with humanitarian crises. They have, however, suffered a lot because of the US blockade (which has been condemned by the UN 165-7). In the past, they could have relied on the USSR for assistance, but without it many countries have had to stand on their own against US imperialism, without another option to turn to.
Sure. I’ll try to answer the best I can, but I’ll start by saying this is a very complex topic and it’s really worth reading some other materials on it depending on what you’re interested in specifically.
I’ll start with the most important point which is: Socialism isn’t just one static thing. It is essentially a belief in radical democracy. That the majority of people, the people actually doing the work in society, ought to be the ones who get to control their economic and political lives. This is hindered by the means of production, the tools and materials needed to make stuff, being owned by a handful of people who don’t work and have incentives which are in direct opposition to those of the workers. How exactly create this transition and then manage society in the future is in our hands, but it’s not a set path. It’s on us to analyze our situation and make decisions accordingly. We can make the wrong decisions, but at least we got to make them. There is no inevitable outcome of a socialist project because we’re the ones responsible for making it happen.
By contrast, capitalism is a system that is mostly controlled by market forces. Even in the idealized version of capitalism, nobody is in the driver’s seat. The world we see today was not the deliberate result of any intentional action by a person or group, but by essentially an evolutionary process by which competition filters out less profitable businesses and elevates more profitable ones. Of course, capitalist economists would say that this is a good thing and a reason for it’s “success.” They’d say, among other things, that humans cannot make decisions that are as good as the results of this “natural” process and therefore, we should let that process go in order to produce the best results for society. What a Marxist economist points out is that these forces actually result in some inherent contradictions which lead to social problems which this system cannot naturally overcome. I’d also have you ask the question: WHO has capitalism helped? Progress isn’t even. What helps some people may not help, or may even hurt others. What metric for progress can we realistically use to account for the fortunes of a capitalist, the deaths and injuries of people in sweatshops, homeless people, people in other countries exploited by imperialism, etc.?
Basically, I can tell you why capitalism will inevitably end up acting in a certain way because we know how it works. It’s almost like a math question. Socialism isn’t bound by any specific thing other than our own creativity, ingenuity, and will. Past and present socialist societies don’t represent a fixed end goal, they are history we can learn from, good and bad.
As far as those specific societies go, there’s so much reading to do on this to fully understand the topic and it’s not like I’m even an expert, but I’d push back on the idea that “socialism” has failed to create good outcomes for people. Each of these countries has their own particular history and material conditions and we should analyze them with those in mind.
Russia was an agrarian feudal society that was way behind the west in industrial development. It also took a lot of the brunt of damage from WWII. Despite this and having to fend off antagonism by the US, they managed to develop society into a modern industrialized economy.
China was an agrarian feudal society in it’s death throes beset by exploitation by European colonialists carving out economic spheres of influence. It fought off Imperial Japan in WWII with massive loss of life. Immediately following this, they were abandoned by their supposed allies in the west who then helped rebuild their former enemy. Despite this, they have evolved into a modern economy that rivals and in some ways surpasses the US economy. You might say that this is due to their market reforms, but the key part of those market reforms is that the state retained control over key sectors of the economy and were able to deliberately make use of foreign capital towards their own developmental ends. It’s yet to be seen if in the long term this is going to work out or if the rise of a capitalist class in China will lead to their eventual political dominance.
Vietnam was a colony which had to fight off it’s owners, then the US along with the dictator they propped up. This was a pretty viscous war that killed many and ruined what infrastructure they had. On top of that, the use of Agent Orange has had long lasting effects. There are STILL children being born today with birth defects due to Agent Orange. After the war they were the subject of US sanctions for some time. And yet, again they became a rapidly developing economy that while not quite at the level of China or the US, has made some massive strides towards becoming a modern nation.
Korea also dealt with the horrors of Imperial Japan during WWII followed up by a dictator and then a war by the US which absolutely leveled their infrastructure. While the US assisted the south in rebuilding, they isolated the North. They definitely haven’t had the success of countries like China, but the fact that they’ve had any progress under such harsh conditions should be considered a miracle.
Cuba used to be a playground for foreign capitalists who owned plantations, casinos, etc. Their revolution was immediately followed by the US isolating them and repeatedly trying to sabotage them. Again, it’s hard to make much progress when you have no access to trade with the rest of the world and have to be constantly on guard against a superpower at your doorstep, but even then, they’ve managed quite a bit. Cuba has had so much success with their healthcare system that they’ve been able to send doctors around the world on humanitarian missions as one example.
Were all of these societies perfect? No of course not. People are people and they will struggle and sometimes stumble, but were/are they complete failures owing to the inherent properties of socialism? No. But again, this is all a very cursory overview of the topic. I would highly encourage you to learn more for yourself on whatever part of this interests you most.
EDIT: Also, taking this back to capitalism, it has been responsible for tons of deaths and human suffering over the course of it’s history, but people don’t really consider that suffering in the same way as they do any suffering that happened during the history of various socialist societies. This isn’t whataboutism, it’s highlighting a flaw in the way we think about these issues. A famine caused by natural conditions in a country that has had famines for all of it’s history? The failures of communism. Capitalism failing to feed large amounts of people while it produces more than enough food to do so? Apparently that’s not a problem.
I’m not saying Capitalism=good and I’m even open to accept Communism as the ethically superior alternative.
It’s just that, while I see Communism as a good balance to unchecked neoliberalism in a democracy, when either side completely takes over, countries seem to drift toward two opposite (but also so similar) types of dictatorship.
I do see how “pure free market” is becoming a threat, as you write, and I would like to see a bit more socialism added to the democratic mix again.
The “dictatorship” you fear is the dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s called democracy, something that’s incompatible with capitalism.
You’re seriously saying with a straight face that you’re concerned for the right of .01% of Americans to be idle parasites sucking our blood dry? You can fuck right off, and keep fucking off.
The dictatorships capitalism and socialism drift towards are not dictatorships in the popular imagination, of a single individual, but instead of classes. Capitalism is the dictatorship of capitalists, who collectively decide the course of society. Socialism is the dictatorship of the workers, who also collectively decide the course of society. In both cases, there is democracy for one class and dictatorship for the rest, the primary difference is that in socialism it is the great majority of people, the ones that actually create value for society, that finally control it.
Socialism is a transitional mode of production and distribution towards communism, so in a way they are a part of the same process of communist construction.
I guess to be more precise in what they are likely referring to, Americans have associated communism with the specific characteristics, real or made up, of previous or existing socialist states.
So when someone not educated in Marxist theory tries to make the distinction between “socialism” and “communism,” they’re basically saying “No, we’re not like those scary Russians and Chinese. We want to be like the civilized social democracies in Europe.” In the process they simultaneously:
Not necessarily maliciously. This is a product of the propaganda we’ve all been exposed to for so long.
Even the word “propaganda” itself has been manipulated by us into a meaningless pejorative over the last 100 years, originally a benign “spreading of ideas”.
That’s fair! Understood.
The thing is: has Communism ever produced a good example in any country or historical period? Most religions are also based on some very good principles, but I can’t think of a country where a theocracy produced a good place for people to live. So, I don’t know… there might be a fundamental disconnect between how good the principles are and how badly they adapt to human nature? Not a critique, please believe me. I really want to be educated on this.
Yes
Everywhere communists have taken power has seen dramatic, rapid improvements for the lives of the working classes. Every single time socialism has been solidified, it has worked out for the majority of society.
Depends on what you consider “good.” You can define good so strictly that no country has ever qualified. You can also define it based on the standards of historically wealthy countries with high standards of living built off of slavery and colonialism. If you do either of those, the answer is probably no.
Otherwise, if you look at socialist systems in comparison to 1) what they had before, and 2) what other options were realistically open to them, the answer is yes.
Vietnam was ruled by a brutal colonial oppressor and fought against a corrupt far-right puppet regime, the communists won and established autonomy, raised standards of living and developed the country, and put down Pol Pot, stopping the Cambodian genocide.
Russia under the tsar was drafting hordes of people to be thrown into the pointless meat grinder of WWI, rather than focusing on domestic development and industrialization. Even when there were reforms, the “moderates” were still insistent on staying in the war and reclaiming lost territory. Once Lenin came to power, he took the L to get out of the war and refocused on domestic development and industrialization. Standards of living rose, and the USSR rapidly transformed from a feudal backwater into a global superpower, even with bearing the brunt of the costs of WWII (which they were only able to do because of that development).
Cuba had a corrupt gangster state that was a puppet of the US. Once the communists took over, they conducted a very successful literacy campaign and trained so many doctors that they’ve not only provided medical care to their own people, but also sent them abroad to help with humanitarian crises. They have, however, suffered a lot because of the US blockade (which has been condemned by the UN 165-7). In the past, they could have relied on the USSR for assistance, but without it many countries have had to stand on their own against US imperialism, without another option to turn to.
Sure. I’ll try to answer the best I can, but I’ll start by saying this is a very complex topic and it’s really worth reading some other materials on it depending on what you’re interested in specifically.
I’ll start with the most important point which is: Socialism isn’t just one static thing. It is essentially a belief in radical democracy. That the majority of people, the people actually doing the work in society, ought to be the ones who get to control their economic and political lives. This is hindered by the means of production, the tools and materials needed to make stuff, being owned by a handful of people who don’t work and have incentives which are in direct opposition to those of the workers. How exactly create this transition and then manage society in the future is in our hands, but it’s not a set path. It’s on us to analyze our situation and make decisions accordingly. We can make the wrong decisions, but at least we got to make them. There is no inevitable outcome of a socialist project because we’re the ones responsible for making it happen.
By contrast, capitalism is a system that is mostly controlled by market forces. Even in the idealized version of capitalism, nobody is in the driver’s seat. The world we see today was not the deliberate result of any intentional action by a person or group, but by essentially an evolutionary process by which competition filters out less profitable businesses and elevates more profitable ones. Of course, capitalist economists would say that this is a good thing and a reason for it’s “success.” They’d say, among other things, that humans cannot make decisions that are as good as the results of this “natural” process and therefore, we should let that process go in order to produce the best results for society. What a Marxist economist points out is that these forces actually result in some inherent contradictions which lead to social problems which this system cannot naturally overcome. I’d also have you ask the question: WHO has capitalism helped? Progress isn’t even. What helps some people may not help, or may even hurt others. What metric for progress can we realistically use to account for the fortunes of a capitalist, the deaths and injuries of people in sweatshops, homeless people, people in other countries exploited by imperialism, etc.?
Basically, I can tell you why capitalism will inevitably end up acting in a certain way because we know how it works. It’s almost like a math question. Socialism isn’t bound by any specific thing other than our own creativity, ingenuity, and will. Past and present socialist societies don’t represent a fixed end goal, they are history we can learn from, good and bad.
As far as those specific societies go, there’s so much reading to do on this to fully understand the topic and it’s not like I’m even an expert, but I’d push back on the idea that “socialism” has failed to create good outcomes for people. Each of these countries has their own particular history and material conditions and we should analyze them with those in mind.
Russia was an agrarian feudal society that was way behind the west in industrial development. It also took a lot of the brunt of damage from WWII. Despite this and having to fend off antagonism by the US, they managed to develop society into a modern industrialized economy.
China was an agrarian feudal society in it’s death throes beset by exploitation by European colonialists carving out economic spheres of influence. It fought off Imperial Japan in WWII with massive loss of life. Immediately following this, they were abandoned by their supposed allies in the west who then helped rebuild their former enemy. Despite this, they have evolved into a modern economy that rivals and in some ways surpasses the US economy. You might say that this is due to their market reforms, but the key part of those market reforms is that the state retained control over key sectors of the economy and were able to deliberately make use of foreign capital towards their own developmental ends. It’s yet to be seen if in the long term this is going to work out or if the rise of a capitalist class in China will lead to their eventual political dominance.
Vietnam was a colony which had to fight off it’s owners, then the US along with the dictator they propped up. This was a pretty viscous war that killed many and ruined what infrastructure they had. On top of that, the use of Agent Orange has had long lasting effects. There are STILL children being born today with birth defects due to Agent Orange. After the war they were the subject of US sanctions for some time. And yet, again they became a rapidly developing economy that while not quite at the level of China or the US, has made some massive strides towards becoming a modern nation.
Korea also dealt with the horrors of Imperial Japan during WWII followed up by a dictator and then a war by the US which absolutely leveled their infrastructure. While the US assisted the south in rebuilding, they isolated the North. They definitely haven’t had the success of countries like China, but the fact that they’ve had any progress under such harsh conditions should be considered a miracle.
Cuba used to be a playground for foreign capitalists who owned plantations, casinos, etc. Their revolution was immediately followed by the US isolating them and repeatedly trying to sabotage them. Again, it’s hard to make much progress when you have no access to trade with the rest of the world and have to be constantly on guard against a superpower at your doorstep, but even then, they’ve managed quite a bit. Cuba has had so much success with their healthcare system that they’ve been able to send doctors around the world on humanitarian missions as one example.
Were all of these societies perfect? No of course not. People are people and they will struggle and sometimes stumble, but were/are they complete failures owing to the inherent properties of socialism? No. But again, this is all a very cursory overview of the topic. I would highly encourage you to learn more for yourself on whatever part of this interests you most.
EDIT: Also, taking this back to capitalism, it has been responsible for tons of deaths and human suffering over the course of it’s history, but people don’t really consider that suffering in the same way as they do any suffering that happened during the history of various socialist societies. This isn’t whataboutism, it’s highlighting a flaw in the way we think about these issues. A famine caused by natural conditions in a country that has had famines for all of it’s history? The failures of communism. Capitalism failing to feed large amounts of people while it produces more than enough food to do so? Apparently that’s not a problem.
Capitalism has destroyed our planet, becoming an existential threat to the human species and all other complex life on Earth.
But yeah, cumyouism bad…mmmkay👍🤤
I’m not saying Capitalism=good and I’m even open to accept Communism as the ethically superior alternative. It’s just that, while I see Communism as a good balance to unchecked neoliberalism in a democracy, when either side completely takes over, countries seem to drift toward two opposite (but also so similar) types of dictatorship.
I do see how “pure free market” is becoming a threat, as you write, and I would like to see a bit more socialism added to the democratic mix again.
The “dictatorship” you fear is the dictatorship of the proletariat. It’s called democracy, something that’s incompatible with capitalism.
You’re seriously saying with a straight face that you’re concerned for the right of .01% of Americans to be idle parasites sucking our blood dry? You can fuck right off, and keep fucking off.
The dictatorships capitalism and socialism drift towards are not dictatorships in the popular imagination, of a single individual, but instead of classes. Capitalism is the dictatorship of capitalists, who collectively decide the course of society. Socialism is the dictatorship of the workers, who also collectively decide the course of society. In both cases, there is democracy for one class and dictatorship for the rest, the primary difference is that in socialism it is the great majority of people, the ones that actually create value for society, that finally control it.
deleted by creator