• _cryptagion [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    62·
    1 day ago

    As long as the state holds control of the large firms and key industries, and resolves class contradictions in the favor of the proletariat and against the bourgeoisie, then as the economy develops and grows it will continue to take on an increasingly socialized character.

    When has this been achieved in communism?

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      64·
      1 day ago

      Cuba, USSR, PRC, etc, though these are/were socialist. Communism, in the Marxist sense (not anarchist), must be global, fully collectivized, etc, while these are examples of single states in the context of a globally capitalist-dominant system. Nevertheless, they are all examples of socialism, where as they developed as socialist countries their economies became increasingly developed and collectivized.

      The USSR dissolved for myriad reasons, such as liberal reforms that set elements of the system against each other, and the PRC at one point under the Gang of Four tried to shortcut its way to communism out of a dogmatic approach to socialism, but post-reform as the PRC has been developing, it has steadily been increading the socialized character of its production. The large firms and key industries are firmly held by a proletarian state, and over time as the small and medium firms grow, these are more and more controlled by the public sector.

      • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
        41·
        10 hours ago

        The USSR dissolved for myriad reasons, such as liberal reforms

        The USSR collapsed because of internal contradictions and oppression.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          4·
          7 hours ago

          The former is partially true, (though not intrinsic to socialism, but the unique flaws in the later years of the soviet system), the latter, no. The large majority of the people supported the system and wished to retain it until the very end due to the social instability at the time, and the larger majority regret its fall. The “internal contradictions” were the liberal reforms that added elements embodied into the system that worked against a collectivized and planned economy.

          The soviet economy was relatively strong, but towards the end because of liberalization, as well as problems from needing to dedicate a large proportion of production to millitarization to keep parity with the US, it began to decrease the rate of growth that was so rapid earlier on.

          More importantly, it’s absolutely true that the dissolution of the USSR was avoidable. The mistakes made by the soviets towards the end don’t need to be repeated, we can learn from what worked so well with the socialist system while also not repeating their mistakes. The torch is carried on by countries that have learned, like Cuba, the PRC, etc.

          Marxism is a science, and is improved through practice.

          • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
            26·
            9 hours ago

            Marxism is a political religion with sacred texts, prophets, a promised paradise on earth, and superficial pseudoscientific trappings. It has killed more people than any other ideology in history.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              81·
              9 hours ago
              1. No, political theory is not the same as religion.
              2. No, there are no sacred texts in Marxism. One of the key elements of Marxism is Dialectics, it’s an ever-evolving theory. One of the more important works is Oppose Book Worship.

              Whatever is written in a book is right — such is still the mentality of culturally backward Chinese peasants. Strangely enough, within the Communist Party there are also people who always say in a discussion, “Show me where it’s written in the book.” When we say that a directive of a higher organ of leadership is correct, that is not just because it comes from “a higher organ of leadership” but because its contents conform with both the objective and subjective circumstances of the struggle and meet its requirements. It is quite wrong to take a formalistic attitude and blindly carry out directives without discussing and examining them in the light of actual conditions simply because they come from a higher organ. It is the mischief done by this formalism which explains why the line and tactics of the Party do not take deeper root among the masses. To carry out a directive of a higher organ blindly, and seemingly without any disagreement, is not really to carry it out but is the most artful way of opposing or sabotaging it.

              1. No, Marxism does not promise “paradise on Earth,” in fact it directly tackles the Utopians that tried to make such a paradise, like Robert Owen and Saint-Simon.
              2. No, it doesn’t have “superficial pseudoscientific trappings.”
              3. No, it has succeeded in lifting billions out of extreme poverty, ended famines common to feudal countries like nationalist China and Tsarist Russia, and more. Meanwhile, liberalism created industrialized mass-murder in the Holocaust, caused Chuchill to divert food from India to the deaths of millions, has created the conditions for mass murder, genocide of Palestinians, and so much more. The death toll of liberalism, both by ratio and in total, far surpasses Marxism and it isn’t close.

              You’re deeply unserious.

              • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
                35·
                7 hours ago

                Marxists will always have a wall of text full of theoretical facts and logic to point to. Practice looks very different. It means no diversity of opinion, oppression, secret police, gulag, millions of deaths.

                Contrary to you I actually know people who have lived in socialist countries. I even have a former high ranking party member in my family.

                lifting billions out of extreme poverty

                Industrialization did that, not Marxism.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  4·
                  7 hours ago

                  Not only do Marxists have theory, we also have practice. Practice doesn’t look different from theory, actually, you’d know this if you actually understood that Marxists reject the perfect utopian wonderland from earlier socialists like Robert Owen. There is diversity in opinion, spirited debate, and many different perspectives. The bourgeoisie is indeed oppressed, as they should be. Socialist states do indeed have prisons. The “millions of deaths” you hint at, in reality, corresponds to far fewer deaths than the victims of liberalism and capitalism.

                  I have spoken with people that grew up in socialism, and current citizens of socialist countries like the PRC. I don’t rely on anecdotes for my stances, I read historical texts, statistics, track metrics, and engage with theory and practice. I don’t care who your family member is, I can find Flat Earthers or those who think the US is the greatest country on the planet. What matters is the actual, on the ground facts.

                  Industrialization in a planned fashion, with a direct focus on uplifiting the proletariat, was the cause of uplifting from poverty. Without Marxism, using England as an example, capitalism skyrocketed poverty. The working class had it far worse than as independent peasants for a long time, life expectancy dropped, and it was only when the proletariat began to organize violently did concessions come and begin to eventually surpass feudalism in England. In socialist countries, the impact was immediately positive.

                  You’re deeply unserious.

                  • Samskara@sh.itjust.works
                    13·
                    7 hours ago

                    Marxism is a good ideology if you want to stay in power and radically transform a society and economy. That kind of revolutionary transformative power also means huge mistakes are in store as well. Sure the workers remained fed by taking away the food from the peasants and causing famines. See the Holodomor and cultural revolution for examples.

                    Some of the socialist planned economies made big progress initially industrializing, providing education, and health care. They hit a wall at some point though.

                    Have you looked at the newly independent countries from decolonization in Africa and elsewhere? How did they fare compared to others?

                    You act as if unions and labor movements are unheard of in liberal capitalist countries. Their activities and the higher overall economic prosperity lead to workers in the west being overall better off than in the socialist block.