There’s hypothetically a bunch of different version of communism for everyone. The thing is, Marx described the problems with capitalism, and some vague sense of what socialism could be, some guidelines of what it should aim for, then kind of left the details up to each individual society to get there how they think is best based on their individual material conditions. He gave his own guesses, but didn’t think he could predict that part fully, it would be up to the people of the future to figure it out and build on. A third world country, rural serf based near fuedal society, like Russia, would have completely different needs from some post-industrial country, like if Germany turned communist, for example. If the world’s sole superpower, the US, turned communist, it would probably be a lot different than communist countries that had to transition under siege neighboring imperialism, like Cuba, North Korea, or Vietnam.

This is just to answer your last question. Don’t think this really addresses your other questions, but just wanted to explain that part, as I’ve had it explained to me before. But I generally agree with you. There should still be some form of democracy but it might look different than what we are used to here in the US or liberal west.

Literature Cafe also looks like it has a community for that if we want to spread things out from world a bit. (Which I think we should at some point.)

[email protected]

Oh ya, I should have guessed. There are a couple Baltic states that did increase in living standards and make some rapid industrialization improvements, but they also made some definite mistakes with handling some things there and trying to do some Russia centralization. It made some of those places very right leaning, which is unfortunate.

At least it generally shared technologies improvements and such with those places. It doesn’t make the USSR worse than the US, for example, which ruined basically all of South and Central America even worse than the USSR did for its neighbors. I want to emphasize that it made some big mistakes, but for some reason people contribute those mistakes to communism, when the US and other capitalist countries had even worse occupations with even worse exploitation, but for some reason that never leads to people saying capitalism is terrible and awful, etc. The world is just too propagandized by the West. The difference is that imperialism and exploitation is basically required by the capitalist system, while it’s a side effect of militarization under a siege mindset for communism. It happened, and will probably continue to happen as long as communism requires capitalism characteristics to jumpstart production, but it’s not a constant requirement of the system like capitalism’s necessity for the line to go up leading to always finding new markets and resources to take.

The USSR did good things and bad things but reactionaries like to pretend it was all bad. There are hard numbers about life expectancy increasing, better life for women, research achievements, general quality of life and happiness metrics, and more that increased. There was lots of bad parts, but same in the US.

There were anti gay laws on the books for the US, and towns you couldn’t even walk in while black. Hell, there are still some sundown towns in places in the US. If you just point out that stuff, or if you lived in such a horrible area or had family who did spreading their stories, then it will just come off as a hell hole. The US does suck, but it’s not just Skid Row, the projects, lynch mobs, coups, wars, etc. Same for the USSR. There were good things we can save and build on, and bad things we need to avoid for future socialist projects.

It’s not like the first attempts for democracy went well, either. But I wouldn’t diss it in the Middle Ages and say we can only do monarchies, the pinnacle of political achievements, just because " it never succeeded. It fell in Greece and the Roman Republic and every other time it’s been tried, and has never worked ever and thus is always doomed to fail."

And a lot of attempts have also been great at raising the standards of living for the general population, as well as for economic development in a relatively quick amount of time.

Ah, I misinterpreted you. Sorry about that. But it’s hard to tell exactly what you’re talking about without more details. Afghanistan, maybe? I get if you don’t want to dox yourself, as someone privacy minded, but it’s hard to know how to respond without more context.

Lol it sounds like someone trying to defend capitalism. “No, it’s totally fine, we just didn’t implement it right. There are certain laws and regulations that can fix it, we swear!”

Yet for some reason any flaw with a communist country is endemic to communism itself, instead of the implementation, contexts of their outside conditions, or foreign influence, or general state of economic development.

Even when they don’t turn it into a dictatorship, they may just turn it back into capitalism, like Russia did. And when that happens, they just sell all the old estates to the highest bidder, making them richer and turning them into oligarchs. And that becomes functionally equivalent to a dictatorship of the bourgeois.

Are they making actual progress on that path, though? They have tons of billionaires, lots of people go bankrupt there from medical bills or are homeless (unlike some other communist countries). The state owns a lot of businesses, but then so does Norway. All their initiatives seem to be related to hurting gay people or making it harder for kids to play video games. They’ve arrested some rich people and cracked down on some corruption, but that also sounds like it could come from a capitalist country. I can’t really find any sort of long-term plan.

You could do that with any country that’s had famines and disasters.

United States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

Ireland https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

First of all, communism isn’t utopian. Even communists don’t think it will be some paradise where all worries disappear. You’ll still have to fight racism, sexism, bad weather, famines, etc.

But it’s often better for an average person from a country of a starting equal level of economic development. You’ve got to give it the “If I was reincarnated in a random person’s body, where would I want to be?” test. US is a good answer, but it’s got a way higher level of economic development with a big headstart. Even then, you could end up in the hood and die early and stressed. When you give the test comparing countries of equal starting economic development, it becomes a lot more muddled.

Like, would you rather randomly live in Cuba, or Somalia? The place where you get free education, health care, etc or a place that is also extremely poor but you don’t get that stuff? You could reincarnate as some rich, warlord there, but would you want to take that chance when you could reincarnate in Cuba as literally anyone and not be worried about ending up homeless? When giving realistic comparisons like this with proper historical context, and you do it over and over again, they tend to come out on top.

It also keeps being built in third-world countries, usually blockade, sanctioned, or regime changed by Western countries so it’s also hard to tell without those variables. Although so far it has a pretty good track record for equal levels of starting development.

Not really. You’re talking about what happened after the USSR. Which yes, was horrible for the quality of life of people who lived in numerous countries all over the globe, but that’s more of an indictment of capitalism than communism. The looting of the government coffers to privatize everything and create oligarchs was a result of the post-USSR shock therapy.

That’s been an issue in constant capitalist countries, too. That’s not an issue of communism and is an unrelated complaint.

Isn’t the rest of his cabinet picked based off winning a contest, being a family member, or having tits?

A protest is not the same as a coup. A coup is a coordinated attack to replace one regime with another, a sudden, violent overthrow of political leadership by a relatively small group of people. The business plot, Jan 6, Brooks Brothers Riot, were all about that.

Even if it turns violent, a protest is not the same as a coup. A protest is basically where you try to affect change or public opinion through large public demonstrations. It’s trying to appeal the public or leadership to listen to you. Meanwhile, a coup doesn’t really need the public. You’re forcefully attacking the levers of power or the process to change leadership itself (ex: stopping elections, disrupting people counting votes, stopping electors from voting or swearing in, etc.). Meanwhile, even if some hooligans burn a police car during a BLM protest, that doesn’t suddenly turn the protest into a coup.

Occupy was mostly peaceful anyway. The whole joke at the time was that it was a bunch of dirty hippies doing drum circle in the park and in front of finance buildings, like that they were peaceful to the point of not being effective, just annoying. That and their demands weren’t clear. There was no criticism of them because violence that I remember at all.

Basically every war we did during the Cold War was about “sharing” the greatness of capitalism over communism, too. We’re still pretending our embargo against Cuba is just for the same dumb reason.

Well, software devs haven’t exactly been known for being good at communications lol. Hence the need for the people guy in Office Space.

Ya this has kind of pushed me to donate to my instance admin. Ya’ll work so hard. That includes you users making content and responding to posts with comments! Love you!