Much credit to this post.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      How’s that radical rise of the proletariat going for those in Venezuela? How did it go for the Soviets after Lenin? How’d that whole great leap forward go for the farmers in Maoist China?

      Venezuela is doing alright, not great but it isn’t really a Socialist state. The USSR had great success in many areas, like a doubling in life expectancy, free healthcare, free education, huge increases in home ownership, and more. The PRC struggled during the Great Leap Forward, Mao was only about 70% good, Deng course-corrected back to Marxism-Leninism.

      Or perhaps you are of the “These are not true Marxist regimes. There’s never been a true Marixst state” camp. Gee, I wonder fucking why? Perhaps because it doesn’t work. Marxism is unsustainable at scale.

      No, AES states exist and Marxism works. Cuba, the PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, etc. are all guided by Marxism-Leninism. Socialism guides the largest economy on the planet, if it couldn’t scale then it wouldn’t have.

      You want a commune, go for it. A town of co-op of farms, by all means. Perhaps even a small city state, just beware, if you introduce a power vacuum, some smooth talking snake oil salesman is going to try to fill it.

      I am not advocating for Communes, I don’t know where you got the idea that I was.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Can you explain?

          Edit for your edit:

          I would also hardly consider Cuba or Laos as frontiers of innovation. Just curious, do you feel that innovation is an important aspect of civilization? If so, do you think socialism and innovation can thrive without the sacrifice of one to the other?

          Cuba and Laos are doing well, Cuba especially is great in the healthcare sector for innovation. Yes, Socialism and innovation thrive together. Markets are good at preparing the ground for public ownership and planning through the formation of monopolist syndicates, but that’s really yhe biggest aspect, innovation is often held back by the profit motive.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 month ago

              The DPRK was bombed into oblivion and is one of the most sanctioned countries on the planet. Despite this, it isn’t nearly as bad as you believe. Heck, why not watch 2 aussies get a haircut there?

              Yes, liberal, non-Marxists believe the PRC to not be Socialist, go figure. The PRC is a Socialist Market Economy. The model is described as a birdcage, the CPC allows markets to naturally develop but only along their guidelines, and increases ownership as competition creates these new monopolist syndicates. Socialism Developed China, Not Capitalism is a good article going over China’s economic model. The CPC has the power it has as a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, it needs that power to maintain supremacy over their bourgeoisie. Communism is achieved by degree, not decree.

              Can you not cite constant far-right Imperialist Think Tanks?

              Of all of your examples, I think Vietnam demonstrates the advantages of a planned economy, however, Vietnam is also a socialist-capitalist hybrid

              Socialist Market Economies are Socialist, not “Socialist-Capitalist hybrids.”

              and their people are also significantly less free than Democratic-Socialist countries such as Sweden and Finland: https://freedomhouse.org/country/sweden/freedom-world/2021

              Ah yes, the far-right Think Tank evaluated some of the most Imperialist countries on the planet and said it was good. Those are Imperialist Social Democracies.

      • ma343@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        This is my problem with the PSL, you can’t call yourself a party for liberation and then support the DPRK regime, an absolute hereditary dictatorship. It’s great to point out the flaws in the US ruling parties, but campism is just ignoring the very real flaws of anyone who happens to oppose the US internationally because they’re on your “team”. In reality, there’s no team except the working class, and these supposedly leftist governments are usually not treating the working class well either.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          The DPRK isn’t a hereditary dictatorship, that’s not accurate. No, it isn’t a utopian paradise either, it’s somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

          but campism is just ignoring the very real flaws of anyone who happens to oppose the US internationally because they’re on your “team”.

          Have you read Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism before? Are you familiar with the term “critical support?”

      • rothaine@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        The USSR had great success in many areas

        The PRC struggled during the Great Leap Forward

        You seem to be papering over the part where a shit ton of their own people died, so I don’t think this really works as a pitch. You’d need to find a way to ensure that mass death wouldn’t happen again, and then succinctly express it.

        Mao was only about 70% good

        Anyone who does mass executions is a fucking monster. Probably better to leave this out of the pitch.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          I can discuss in-depth with you if you’d like, but Blackshirts and Reds is the perfect book for you. AES is by no means a fantasy wonderland, but it is a dramatic improvement on existing conditions. The Kuomintang and the Tsars were more brutal than the Communists, and that brutality lasted for centuries.