this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2025
374 points (91.6% liked)
Economics
1883 readers
9 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Easy answers are never right. So capitalism is not >the< problem. For example: Look at the the history of the Soviet Union. Its way more complex
In trying to denounce an "easy answer," you came to worse conclusions. The Soviet model was far better than Capitalism is now for the post-Soviet states, and Socialism was far better than Tsarism as well.
Living in a post-soviet state, you're pretty damn wrong.
Statistically, most people living in post-soviet states disagree with you, and this number gets higher when it polls specifically people old enough to have actually lived in Socialism. We can talk about specifics if you want, but just saying "you're wrong" doesn't really give me anything to respond to.
The people old enough to remember communism executed Caucescu in Romania and ousted both the Rákosi and the Kádár system in Hungary, the former through a violent uprising that required the USSR Red Army to intervene and start executing people. Sounds like people loved them, doesn't it?
I'd go into detail through personal details how shit the system was on the ground, or through data how both systems were so badly ran that people starved to death (Rákosi) or that we've accumulated a debt spiral that Hungary didn't fully repay until the 2000s (Kádár), but we both know you already decided they were superior anyway, so I won't bother.
and now, thanks to capitalism, we're getting into a new debt spiral
and before you start defending the current system, ask yourself, why is it "communism's" (i would debate that it was ever actually communist) fault that their cronyism ruined the system, but now it's not capitalism's?
Oh I hate the current system. Just marginally less so than the previous one, mostly due how the current system worked around the 2000s. The current debt spiral is not a coincidence, it's the same effect in play as it was with communist era. Orbán is building up the same system we had with Kádár or even Rákosi - a bunch of state-owned or state-controlled companies organised by a central planning committe which may or may have accurate ideas of how the economy should work
When the hungarian communist saga began, there were a few incredibly stupid ideas they implemented, but the example I'd go with is "We will be the country of iron and steel" (a vas és acél országa leszünk). It was more or less forcing heavy industry on Hungary, despite Hungary having basically no reasources or reasonable ability for anything such. But, since that was what the communist party decreed, it was carried through. Make a bunch of such decisions with impunity and you have a lot of flaws in the economy, each making it do worse. It's how a dominantly agricultural country managed to have a famine, too... which lead to a revolt and the downfall of Rákosi.
Then when Kádár replaced Rákosi, and things improved but nothing fundamentally change. We were still part of the USSR - he was kept in power by the Red Army - so there was no way to admit the communist model he inherited was failing. So they kept it chugging along, financing the crappy economy from increasing debts. Until the whole thing imploded.
And now we get to modern Hungary. Orbán is in power. He has hsf complete free reign of the country for what, 14 years? Our biggest domestic produce is now propaganda, which is probably the only thing that works properly now. He is changing every law any day as he sees fit. He's turning most of the economy into state-owned or state-controlled companies. He can even decree how the economy should work - since they can pass any laws, he can freely control say, the price of anything (they just did enacted a new such law today). He even decreed we'll be the country of batteries, and decided that hungary will be sporting a few dozen chinese battery factories despite us having no resources or any geographical/societal potential for such (we'll be importing all resources for the factories and we need to use chinese/phillipine labor there). And to make this crappy economy chug along, we're getting increasing amounts of debts to mask the inefficiencies. Which, I think, will soon implode on us.
As for your question, I'm not sure if it's communism or cronyism that was the issue. A country is a big and complex thing, and it's hard give hard answers, Did the Rákosi/Kádár system fail because they pushed commuism too hard, or was it because they were idiots following the wrong idea? Probably a bit of both if you ask me. The way they implemented a planned economy was a top-heavy system completely impervious to criticism. And for most of us that was the communist system playing out in reality.
There could've been cronyism involved, but probably wasn't much. If anything, our current Orbán system is displaying cronyism and corruption way worse than the previous ones. Funnily enough it's driving the nostaliga for the old system back, but it's also not counteracting the propaganda to make people not keep voting this shit back every 4 years.
the steel and battery thing is a parallel that i didn't connect, that is a very good point. i just keep stressing out about the poisoning of the surrounding areas. hungarians are already pretty "relaxed" about safety regulations, the chinese are even worse
i would disagree that they pushed communism at all, in marx's theory democracy should be not just in politics, but in the workplace too, but having one party and they deciding what everyone does (and if you disagree, you disappear) is very counter to that
and that was a problem from the very first election the russians had, after the revolution - lenin (who i think was well intended) didn't like the results, that the moderates won, so he forced his way (which was a fatal mistake to be clear). marx did describe a temporary, transitional phase of "workers's dictatorship" before the actual communism, and the bolsheviks latched on to that hard, and kept it going, and eventually this was exported to hungary as well - "the singular party knows what the people want and need, or else"
there are some famous examples of soviets appointing people to important positions because of how loyal they were, like guy who ran the chernobyl experiment, trofim lysenko who caused mass starvation with an untested agricultural theory, or the general who blew up himself and a few hundred other people trying to rush a space rocket launch for the anniversary of the bolshevik revolution, even though nobody told him to do so
fortunately hungary, the "happiest barrack" didn't have it this bad, but it was common that only party members got positions, and often they knew nothing about the subject. a biology teacher told me about how back in the day, the leader of the local farming collective didn't even know what protein was
imo the current system is worse because they don't even put the incompetent people in power to actually do the job, they only do it to enable them to steal as much as possible
72% of Hungarians claim they are worse off now than under Communism according to polling data. That isn't a slim majority at all.
There's much that can be critiqued about the USSR, but Socialism remained a better system than Capitalism and Tsarism.
Yeah, I bet none of that 72% ever stood in line at the bakery, merely hoping there was still some bread left when they got to their turn. Or having to help offload PB gas bottles from the train, because otherwise it was almost guaranteed there wouldn't be gas to cook with.
As for the poll, there's a lot of complex social reasons behind it. But what I consider the most important is that we have the newest brand of authoritian government in power for the majority of the last 24 years with completely unchecked power, and the only things they are good at is corruption and brainwashing the voting populus. The last decade has been an unmitigated failure for Hungary, and despite that, it's still ahead of the communist system I grew up in. We are quickly moving back to the same authoritarian system, though.
Edit: and since our current system is very intent on replicating the mistakes of the ole' communist system in exactly the same manner, we are very much on track to implode again in the same way. Yay for us.
Seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to grapple with polling results, and vague gesturing at issues rather than actually grappling with how Socialism was better than Capitalism.
Ok, as always you try to glorify the Soviet Union despite everything, even against people whove been living in the SU. May I ask you how old you are and in which country you habe been grown up?
Despite what? What is "everything?" Polling data for Hungary states that 72% of Hungarians believe they were better off in the Soviet Union than modern Capitalism, I am siding with the people of Hungary, and against someone going against the grain in this instance.
I live in the US Empire, and I will not tell you my age and dox myself further. I don't believe that has relevance either, trying to goad people into telling you personal information and then trying to claim they must be young and naive to disagree with you when they don't answer is just rhetorical garbage.
And according to your data from hungary: Hungary is an authocratic state with an not so free press. It wouldnt surprise me, if that data is somehow corrupted. Or problematic because of an indoctrinated public.
Capitalism indeed has devastated Hungary, sharp observation from you.
So you speak for other countries as an "expert" from the other side of the world? Thats really relevant.
Further more your age has relevance by experiencing other times, with other media and a other zeitgeist.
I never once claimed to be an expert. I claimed to have facts and statistics, do you believe that facts only count if they come from the country you live in?
If person A from country X says one thing, and persons B and C from country X say the opposite, does that automatically prove A correct? It doesn't automatically prove B and C correct either, but you took issue with me pointing out that B and C disagree with A.
You lecture people on the other side of the world about theire life by quoting a statistic from a relativly unfree and authocratic state ...
I have spoken with several people from post-soviet states who lived during Socialism as well, and speak of it fondly. When all they have is anecdotes and all I have are statistics and data I can find, I end up agreeing more with the people whose opinions align with the material reality of the facts at hand.
If I were from another country, I wouldn't care much for.the opinion of a US Trump supporter who thinks Biden is a Communist.
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/capitalism_doesnt_work.html
It's inevitable to think capitalism is wrong, but it's easier to fix than Communism or any other system.
I stopped to shout against capitalism simply cause we do not have a better solution yet. Also when capitalism gets wrong, it's mostly because a lack of regulations. A balanced system, like socialdemocracies in Scandinavia are a good example.
Unfortunately it seems we are going towards autocracies everywhere, and that's not capitalism's fault but just human greediness. So in other word, we're the problem, otherwise Socialism would reign all over the world.
communism is supposed to be the democratization of workplaces, on top of democratic politics.
why do you think that capitalism, that repeatedly navigates around the safety rails (for multiple centuries now) is easier to fix?
Another classic example of anti-communists trying to describe communism and just ending up describing capitalism.
Can you name a commie country that has not ended in a dictatorship?
Socialist states end up in a dictatorship of the proletariat, usually in some form of democratic centralism.
Capitalist states end up in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, otherwise known as bourgeois democracy or oligarchy, with occasional lapses into fascism.
i assume you realise capitalism isn't a defense against dictatorship either? almost every country in the world currently is capitalist, and yet, half of them are a dictatorship, or nearing it (how long til freedom country officially stops being free? there's still some resistance)
and also that the usa did everything in their power to curb the spread of communism? multiple democratically elected somewhat socialist leaders were killed or at least deposed, to place money friendly tyrants instead, the ones that survived, were like castro in cuba, because they were extremely careful, to the point of paranoia, or they were too big to tackle, like the soviets and china. not to mention they participated and participate even more nowadays in (state) capitalism
Capitalism erases its own foundations, Imperialist countries like the Nordics you use as good examples depend on hyper-exploitation of the Global South. The answer is Socialism, which is an inevitable process because over time Capitalism erases the foundations it stands on and no system is static, it always moves towards the next stages or it dies. Look at businesses, they never maintain static sizes, they either grow or die, or stay small enough to be irrelevant, in aggregate.
There's frankly so many false assumptions here that it would take many well-developed comments to answer them all.
Socialism, ok, like which one?
Venezuela?
Most Socialists would not consider Venezuela to be Socialist, it has a sort of quasi-socialism but really is Capitalist, sort of like the Nordic Countries if they weren't Imperialist. When Socialists refer to Socialism, they refer to AES, generally, such as the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and the former USSR.
The reason your comment is hard to properly address is because there are numerous questionable claims. How does one "fix Capitalism?" The answer you gave was using Imperialism to fund safety nets, that "works" for a small group of people at the expense of a much larger group. When you say "when Capitalism goes wrong, it's due to a lack of regulations," you don't analyze who controls whether or not regulations are erased, ie the bourgeoisie, ergo all Capitalism is subject to the same failure.
Your solution is to blame everything on greed as though no solution can exist, this type of nihilism gets in the way of actually solving any problems, and you speak as though you have authority despite showing no apparant understanding of what Socialists want, or what their critique of Capitalism truly is. I'd take a step back and read some more, or ask questions like you started doing.
It feels to me you're supposing a lot of stuff on top of the few words I wrote, and you started polarising the discussion.
I grown up in a communist family and I felt like for many years of my life, despite living in a democratic land. I'm quite far away from the capiralistic supporter you may think I am.
Let me understand. Do you think Russia, NK, Cambodia, Kuba, PRC, Vietnam and so on are/were good place to live in? Do you live in one of those places?
I responded to what you wrote, nothing more.
The very fact that you contrast Communism with Democracy, when Communism is democratic, is why it's hard to take anything you're saying seriously. Either you're trying to critique Communism but haven't actually done the critiquing so it just appears to be nonsense, or you legitimately don't know that Communism is democratic. Neither give me much to work with.
To answer your question:
The Russian Federation is Capitalist, and thus irrelevant
The USSR was Socialist, and was better to live in than post-Soviet or pre-Soviet Russia.
The DPRK is Socialist, and is under an incredibly brutal trade embargo, and has had to recover from US attempts at genocide via destroying 80% of buildings and killing millions.
Cambodia was never really Socialist, its Quasi-Socialism under Pol Pot is divorced from any actual Marxist analysis and Pol Pot was supported by the US.
Cuba is, like the DPRK, under a brutal trade embargo and under constant pressure from thr United States. Despite that, key metrics like Life Expectancy are higher than neighboring Capitalist countries that aren't closed off from the rest of the world.
The PRC is Socialist, and out of all of these countries is the one I would most like to live in. I am very bullish on the PRC continuing to make great strides in quality of life, and will soon become the de facto world power.
Vietnam is pretty cool, from my understanding. Socialism has been tremendously beneficial to the Vietnamese, and overthrowing French Colonialism was a massive step forward.
I live in the US Empire, and I understand that I live in the most Imperialist country on the planet. I want the Empire to fall, and to work towards more even development and industrialization along cooperative lines.