this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2025
97 points (92.9% liked)
Asklemmy
49643 readers
521 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah it's always the same with those ideologically blinded people.
Capitalism is inherently bad blah blah
Socialism can never work blah blah
It's all bullshit. Capitalism does not matter, socialism does not matter. How we call it does not matter. What matters is that a society is healthy, sustainable and prospering.
The main problem of all theories is the confrontation with reality - each set of values or ideology is as much worth as the people who (supposedly) follow it.
In any system we ever built, there are greedy, corrupt, powerful people, who like shit, always somehow end up swimming at the top. And then everything begins to rot.
Socialism was never implemented in good faith. Oh, you're talking about the Soviet Union? Try to run a planned economy on a scale of a modern society. And tell me about equality and freedom where you gotta be in the party to have access to better stuff.
Or you are talking about China? Well, they are pragmatic and apparently learned. That's why China is not a planned economy, but state capitalism. Sadly, it's heavily authoritarian.
Capitalism and the idea of markets is not the problem. The problem is if it becomes an end in itself. So if you ask me, economically, the model that China is doing right now is right and obviously pretty successful. It is the rest I would rather not copy.
I neither want to live in a country run by oligarchs, nor by a self-serving elite of authoritarian bureaucrats. The rotten form of capitalism is the neoliberal dystopia we see in the west right now, the rotten form of socialism is what the Soviet Union was by the end.
You want a socialist revolution? Good luck. But please think about how to prevent just shifting the wealth and power from one group of bad people to another over the course of a few decades.
You want to see enemies, so you picture me like one.
Tell me one country that absolutely without doubt was able to improve the living standard and bring masses of people out of poverty, which is not China.
I am not a fanboy of China, but I respect that whatever they are doing in the last 30-40 years, because it works. Even through a biased Western lens it's hard to deny that they are extremely successful. But China does not count. They drifted away from pure socialism right after Mao was done. The legacy of Mao is not that great. Both Stalin and Mao mainly produced repressions and famines.
And where is the rest of the "socialist block" which is supposedly successful right now, and not an authoritarian corrupt backwater? I know what you'll say. The evil West has torpedoed everything everywhere. That's too convenient.
I read the Capital, did you?
Don't you dare telling me I hate the left.
I just dislike people who think they have found the ultimate answer and love their answer more than other people.
Economical and organizational structure is a tool to manage societies, not a fucking religion.
Cuba, USSR, Vietnam, etc. Socialism works.
China 100% counts as socialist. The Gang of Four diverged from Marxism-Leninism into ultraleft dogmatism. Ultraleftism is not "pure socialism," there is no such thing as "pure" socialism, capitalism, etc. The PRC under Mao had markets, private property, etc, as did the USSR. As a consequence, the modern CPC is course-corrected to a standard Marxist-Leninist outlook. Both Mao and Stalin are seen as 70% good by the modern CPC.
The claims of "authoritarianism" are the repression of capitalists.
Yes, I've read Capital, volume 1. I'm on volume 2 right now. More importantly, I've read a ton of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and far more Marxist authors, all who speak about Dialectical Materialism and socialism, how to bring about communism, and more, all of which you won't find in Capital. I'm skeptical that you've even read Volume 1, to be honest, your understanding of Marxism is incredibly poor. Using "I've read Capital" as an "I win the argument" tool is incredibly poor rhetoric, if you have a good argument, make it, don't appeal to your own authority.
Yes, political theory isn't a religion, you seem to think it is though.
Did I say anywhere that the US is great ?
I'm central European and always hated their mentality and imperialism. You seem to equate US with any form of economy with some form of capitalism, i.e. markets and prices as a mechanism.
Europe is also far from innocent from further back, but AFAIK Europe did not coup or invade anyone recently and we have our own flavor of political system, social democracy or call it however you like, which worked pretty well until everything began to shift into US-style neoliberalism/fascism in the last 20 years or so.
I'm as happy to see the US destroy themselves and lose influence right now as you probably are, but you are right, I have been living in a privileged environment in any case.
This is nonsense, again.
The Soviet economy worked very well, and was one of the fastest growing economies of the 20th century. The difference between the wealthiest and the poorest was about 5 times, compared to hundreds to thousands in capitalist countries (and even more).
The PRC has a Socialist Market Economy, the large firms and key industries are state owned and planned. They are pragmatic and learned, which is why they maintained socialism.
Yes, the PRC is proof that socialism works astoundingly well.
Again, you return to vibes-based nonsense. The Soviet Union was more democratic than capitalist countries, and the PRC is as well.
Haha my family emigrated from Russia in the 90s, don't tell me about the real life in the Soviet Union.
The difference between wealthiest and poorest was surely much smaller, but the living standard overall was also much lower. My grandpa telling stories how he had to stay in line in the hope to get some sausage for the family, or about the underground black markets where people illegally were exchanging western goods that simply did not exist in the Soviet Union. The misplanned and falsely reported production, factory owners faking their numbers to appear like they satisfy quota. My grand-grandpa barely not being sent to a Gulag because we're an ethnic minority, even though he was a WWII war hero. Having to use connections and swaps to organize having an independent apartment for your adult children and their partners. Having to engage in everyday bribing of officials to get some paperwork ready not in months but weeks, because that's the only way to get things done there.
Is this more than vibe to you? You are not exactly quoting academic literature either.
I have heard enough stories to know that this is not a system I could see or want myself existing in and I'm happy I grew up in central Europe.
The PRC is doing its own thing. You can call it socialist market, but this term I have never heard before, the usual term is state capitalism. What we can agree on is that they are doing pretty well at the moment.
I'm not trying to be mean here, but I really don't care about anecdotes. When I say that the Soviet economy was strong and maintained some of the highest rates of growth in the world all while having a lower disparity, it's because I've done the reading and research to see that. A quick article like *Do Publicly Owned, Planned Economies Work? by Stephen Gowans, or a full book like Is the Red Flag Flying? The Political Economy of the Soviet Union by Albert Syzmanski or Blackshirts and Reds by Michael Parenti all do a far better job than anecdotes at seeing what conditions were actually like systemically.
I'm also not saying the Soviet Union was perfect. There indeed were issues with black markets, misplanning, etc, but they didn't outweigh the dramatic benefits the system provided. It's no wonder that the majority of people who lived through the Soviet system wish it had remained. With the reintroduction of capitalism in the 90s, an estimated 7 million people died due to a loss in safety nets and a dramatic increase in poverty around the world.
The achievements of the USSR and its failings need to be contextualized in the fact that, unlike western countries, the USSR was a developing country. With it, however, came around the developed world a mass expansion in safety nets in order to provide what the USSR was already providing for its people. With the fall of the USSR, wealth disparity around the world began to climb more rapidly than ever:
As for the PRC, "Socialist Market Economy" is the official term for its economy. The fact that you admit to never hearing that term before means you haven't actually done much research into it. State Capitalism refers to countries where private ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries, but with strong state influence, like Bismark's Germany, the Republic of Korea, and Singapore. In the PRC, it's public property that governs the large firms and key industries.
The system overall is called Socialism With Chinese Characteristics, or SWCC. Here's a study guide for it, in more depth. The key takeaway is that private property and markets existed in Mao's era, in the USSR, etc, the modern PRC isn't very different from those in terms of where the balance of power lies. Trying to plan all of the small, underdeveloped industry can often slow growth, while planning and controlling the large firms and key industries is not only more effective economically, also retains proletarian control over the economy. As the small and medium firms are developed through market forces, they can be better intrgrated into central planning and have their property gradually sublimated. It's Marxism-Leninism applied to the conditions of modern China, also called Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought. So yes, China is absolutely socialist.
My very original statement was about the fact regulated markets makes sense as an instrument in an economy, and as long as they are ultimately controlled to work to the benefit for the people, they are a useful instrument. I am strongly against the idea that markets are the ultimate ordering principle for society. If by "capitalism" you mean this, then sure, I am against capitalism. But this extreme free market capitalism has a name - neoliberalism. I'm against neoliberalism, because it leads to inequality and fascism.
I don't see where we even disagree, except for how to call certain combinations and variations of features in an economy. Honestly, I don't believe how to call it is so important except for the fact we agree on the actual meaning behind the practical outcome.
China has always been a syncretic culture that is really good at incorporating various elements that make sense in a holistic way into their culture. They digested socialism just as they digested capitalism and just as they digested Buddhism when it was new.
In any case thanks for your links, I'm currently reading a survey about China (not focused on only the last century), so this can complement my reading.
First off, I apologize if I came off as hostile. That's not really my intent, I try to correct misconceptions and misunderstandings surrounding Marxism and Marxism-Leninism when I see them.
Overall, the Marxist view on markets is that at lower stages of development, they can serve a progressive role, but at higher stages they impede progress and even turn into imperialism, as we see in Europe and the US, ie the global north. Capitalism is best described as a system by which private property is the principle aspect of an economy, ie the large firms and key industries are privately owned. In such a condition, this means private property also has control of the state, so markets will largely play a reactionary role in exploiting and oppressing the masses. Socialism can make use of limited markets while retaining state control of the large firms and key industries to get the good growth of markets in lower development while taking advantage of the numerous benefits of central planning at higher stages in development.
Capitalism itself leads to inequality and fascism. There isn't a way to escape this, there is no such thing as a static capitalism. It either forces imperialism outwardly, is stuck at simple reproduction in imperialized countries (rather than reproduction on an expanded scale), or turns to fascism, if it doesn't have a socialist revolution.
As for the PRC, they are firmly Marxist-Leninist, specifically Marxism-Leninism-Xi Jinping Thought, which is largely a synthesis of ML-Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory, itself an addendum to MZT. Their system is firmly socialist, their use of markets and private property is in a controlled manner that can only be controlled as such in a primarily planned economy. Without understanding this, you won't be able to see why the PRC is on the rise and is so stable, while Social Democracies in Europe are on the decline.
You're welcome for the links. If you want a standard reading list for Marxism-Leninism, I made an introductory one you can check out if you ever get the interest. You'll be able to better understand the USSR, it's strengths and weaknesses, and why the PRC is currently succeeding.
No worries. Yeah, you came off as somewhat hostile, or maybe I mixed you up with the other commenter.
What is annoying on Lemmy (this does not apply to you) are the cliche "tankies" who immediately accuse everyone who is not of their opinion to be a fascist or support fascism. That for sure won't help the cause of educating the proletariat.
Paradoxically, such people are pushing many just ignorant or centrist-minded people towards the right, and this does a great disservice to the left basically everywhere, rubbing people under their nose how they are supposedly wrong or bad (not saying that there are no people with truly horrible and wrong views, just saying you for sure won't convince them that way).
I think the left should not only study socialism/Marxism/etc, but also much more psychology. Being or feeling right is easy, convincing others - that's the hard part, and most left movements are really bad at their "marketing", while the fascists have nothing to offer, but are better at PR. It's a frustrating state of affairs.
Thanks for staying civil and constructive.
I don't really blame many of the Marxists here for being short on patience, much of the arguments we have are the same exact arguments we've had day after day. I do think patience tends to be more useful in dialogue, but I also can't expect everyone else to uphold that.
Take care!
This is just you replacing sound economic analysis with vibes-based idealism, ironically you're divorcing yourself from reality while claiming others need to see it better. A quick example is that socialism has resulted in far lower inequality while maintaining stable growth than capitalism has, yet you pretend they are the same in disparity. Connect with reality.
Could not agree more. I'm a democratic socialist. I firmly believe that the ideas of that ideology, properly implemented, can drastically improve the standard of living for a huge percentage of the population.
I live in a country where our democratic socialist party is fantastically corrupt, lazy and completely bereft of any motivation to do anything that doesn't directly benefit themselves. Consequently, I don't support them. Results over ideology is an important mantra no matter what you believe.
All socialism is democratic, "democratic socialism" normally refers to reformist socialism. The corruption, in that case, makes sense, as reformism is usually conceding to the status quo.