Heard someone say that their grandparents who left the USSR during the collapse in the early 90’s told them something along the lines of “not everything the Soviet government promised us about communism was true, but everything they told us about capitalism is true.”
I don’t think any of the nations who call themselves “communists” can actually be considered communist. Hell, most of them are pretty much dictatorships, which is the farthest you can get from communism.
If were gonna start arguing semantics though, then what is pure capitalism? As even the US has limits on what capitalist shenanigans they draw the lines on. Ie policies like antitrust laws, which are explicitly to prevent monopolies, because while capitalism strive for monopolies, monopolies also usually kill the market so…
The answer is obviously socialism when defined as the government owning or regulating the means of production, meaning just regulation is enough no need to own them.
Communism doesn’t work yet because we can’t seem to plan resources use for large economies as efficiently as organic markets do it.
But unregulated markets just destroy themselves, end up overexpensive enshittified adfests trying to push subpar products to you that won’t last you even the walk home.
Capitalism is like the cancerous form of market economies.
And communism has historically been about as healthy as the vegan diet of a nutritionally uninformed anemic teenager. Its not bad as an idea, but market economies just work better when they’re properly regulated.
I’d definitely argue with you that countries like China aren’t actually communist.
Anti-intellectual cultire fixated on higher education? I’m not saying that we don’t have collective mental disorders. Maybe during Stalin(see Doctors’ Case, cybernetics and genetics), but generally no.
The whole sctick of the Bolsheviks was to equalize everyone. Anyone that specialized in anything was demonized. Was the country started starving, that’s when higher education and allowing citizens to specialize again started to become the focus.
Communism lifted an illiterate nation of serfs into an industrial and atomic super power in, like, 50 years.
Which is to say just as bad as capitalism but approximately four times faster.
It’s easy to be faster when you’re catching up to already existing tech, I doubt their economic system mattered much in that regard
Heard someone say that their grandparents who left the USSR during the collapse in the early 90’s told them something along the lines of “not everything the Soviet government promised us about communism was true, but everything they told us about capitalism is true.”
But was it communism? Or was it labour camps and dictatorship?
They’re the same picture.
I don’t think any of the nations who call themselves “communists” can actually be considered communist. Hell, most of them are pretty much dictatorships, which is the farthest you can get from communism.
If were gonna start arguing semantics though, then what is pure capitalism? As even the US has limits on what capitalist shenanigans they draw the lines on. Ie policies like antitrust laws, which are explicitly to prevent monopolies, because while capitalism strive for monopolies, monopolies also usually kill the market so…
The answer is obviously socialism when defined as the government owning or regulating the means of production, meaning just regulation is enough no need to own them.
Communism doesn’t work yet because we can’t seem to plan resources use for large economies as efficiently as organic markets do it.
But unregulated markets just destroy themselves, end up overexpensive enshittified adfests trying to push subpar products to you that won’t last you even the walk home.
Capitalism is like the cancerous form of market economies.
And communism has historically been about as healthy as the vegan diet of a nutritionally uninformed anemic teenager. Its not bad as an idea, but market economies just work better when they’re properly regulated.
I’d definitely argue with you that countries like China aren’t actually communist.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/capitalism-with-chinese-characteristics/CECD36DB2C3623DEE4670F7897BAA3CB
Yes, USSR became a superpower where most areas were without toilets…
They’re still without toilets under capitalism.
It was also responsible for the highly anti-intellectual culture that existed and still continues in said country today. So it swings both ways.
Anti-intellectual cultire fixated on higher education? I’m not saying that we don’t have collective mental disorders. Maybe during Stalin(see Doctors’ Case, cybernetics and genetics), but generally no.
The whole sctick of the Bolsheviks was to equalize everyone. Anyone that specialized in anything was demonized. Was the country started starving, that’s when higher education and allowing citizens to specialize again started to become the focus.