You must log in or register to comment.
The greatest trick nazis ever pulled was making you believe they lost WW2.
-
Foundation of nazi establishment is competing with communist/socialist ideology. It turned into Reagan’s trickle down voodoo economics as a reframing of NDSAP economic policy
-
Diminishing communist countries, through domino theory, and discouraging resistance to nazi colonialism has been the core playbook.
-
You don’t grow carrots in a rabbit enclosure and act surprised when they get eaten. Capitalism holds a lot of power in the world, and if we want socialism to succeed we need to figure out a way to defend against constant attacks from capitalism while we’re trying to grow. It doesn’t matter if it would succeed in a world where it’s left alone, we need it to succeed in the rampant capitalistic world we live in.
The meme seems to replying to those who ignore the attacks that Socialism faced and try to say that it ‘naturally’ is destined to fail. The meme seems to be criticism on that and reminding them of the great threats that Socialist-led states faced to still thrive.
It does not mean that we are surprised, but for others who ignore that aspect or maybe spreading such a negative image to others.
I think Socialist-led states have observed failures and made changes to survive and thrive.
they write it down for posterity and we can use them to teach us what did and didn’t work.
the problem seems to be that most refuse to learn from it because lenin, or stalin, or mao, etc. are authoritarianTM so their work is automatically disregarded and people like sanders, aoc, piker, platner keep repeating the mistakes of the past.
Yep, all of the existing socialist states have had to adapt to the world we live in. China decided rapid development and integration would be the best way to prevent itself from being attacked, Cuba decided diplomacy via mass medical support and training would be best, the DPRK established nuclear deterrence and more self-reliance, and Vietnam and Laos took paths similar to China (and now Cuba).
Not saying this isn’t true, but there is something that I have often wondered with this reasoning.
There have been some quite powerful socialist states. Sure, fledgeling socialist states were sabotaged by the US and it’s allies. But they were also propped up by the USSR and it’s allies.
So, if external sabotage explains the failure of socialist states, why wasn’t support from powerful socialist allies enough to offset it? And why didn’t comparable interference cause capitalist states to fail at similar rates?
There is plenty of research comparing socialist and capitalist development actually.
Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possible:
Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time:
A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life:
This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development.
This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe.
Romania, the inustrialization of an agrarian economy under socialist planning
why wasn’t support from powerful socialist allies enough to offset it? And why didn’t comparable interference cause capitalist states to fail at similar rates?
Support was able to offset it for a while. The USSR was also a fundamental ally to the US and its allies. That period of time legitimized and stabilized their existence so that the Cold War started on a semblance of parity and balance.
The USSR pushed the world towards industrialization, technology development and the Space Race, but it took nearly 50 years of seige to bring the USSR to dissolution.
why didn’t comparable interference cause capitalist states to fail at similar rates
The interference simply wasn’t comparable. But more importantly the USSR came out of World War 1. The Imperialist capitalist states were already failing and famously there became some fascist states hell bent on destroying all marxism and bolshevism.
Because socialism isn’t good enough. Because a “socialist state” is a contradiction in terms. Because the state and capital depend on one another, and if you try to have one without the other, the other will again rear it’s head and you’ll wind up with the same collapse as capitalist countries, one way or the other: either through state corruption and tyranny or through the capitalist means we’re all familiar with.
Why is socialism not “good enough?” That seems more like a moral framing. What is the problem with socialism?
As for a socialist state being a contradiction in terms, this is false. Socialism is the transition between capitalism and communism, and as such has elements of both. The state exists until all production and distribution has been collectivized, and begins to die out as all of society becomes classless in accordance.
Oh lmao this is .ml never mind
Is there a reason why you both chose to respond and refused to answer? Why not just walk away if you can’t or don’t want to answer, no need to tack on a meaningless jab.
Because socialist countries didn’t have the same networks, hegemony or development at the start, the USSR didn’t have infinite money, technology or resources to give anywhere
While socialist states have been the most rapidly improving and developing countries in history, they did not start this race off on the same foot as the developed imperialist powers like the US and western Europe. China was among the poorest countries on the planet when it had its revolution, Russia was referred to as the “sick old man of Europe” at the time of its revolution. While the great strides made by socialist states were and are incredible, they still did not reach the sheer levels of material wealth imperialist countries enjoy from exploiting the global south.
Socialism is undeniably a better socioeconomic system. Comparing them by the data, this is uncontestable. The arguments against socialism rely entirely on false equivalence and poor comparistics, essentially playing metaphysical tricks, or through atrocity propaganda either magnifying real events or distorting them.
Tldr; socialism is the best internal system, when you dont have a neighbor you’re willing to steal resources from to tip the scales
Pretty much!
I think they were weaker, had lesser resources.
Many socialist states were former colonies or under capitalist regimes aligned with the colonial capitalist regimes, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, Cuba. They bad to build themselves up, under the capitalist attempts at sabotage. So unlikely they had enough resources to do anything back at hat scale.
USSR was indeed a powerful ally for them, but seems to have lesser resources compared to the Western empires with all their centuries of colonial expanse and the wealth accumulated.
The Sino-Soviet split also probably reduced united strength
The capitalist colonial regimes in many places fell tho. The South African apartheid regime backed by the USAmerican capitalist bloc, fell. Many colonies got free.
So, they were able to tackle colonialism, but likely did not have more resources for the level of influence that the colonial/capitalist bloc had
had lesser resources.
Western financialization permitted high consumption and concentration of wealth in an establishment capable of financing war/military… until its current later stage.
Thank you for this. When I think of the real circumstances on the ground that these states faced, how little they had to do with, and how constricted their ability to make any real changes, I’m really amazed that they had any success at all, and… I kind of see why vassal states are afraid to make a break for it. It’s like being tethered with a slipknot around the neck. The only solution is sever the tether, risk breaking your neck, or be strangled slowly with any movement made, or have the captor tighten or loosen the noose to whatever degree and how slowly or quickly as dictated by their caprices.
Part of it is the initial conditions of states experiencing socialist revolutions, as those generally don’t happen when things are going well, and fighting during the revolution itself will also destroy some infrastructure, so even the more powerful of those states start on the back foot. In addition, during World War 2 both China and the USSR saw major invasions by the axis power causing even more damage to them, while the mainland of the US did not see any fighting which allowed them to maintain their productive capacity and infrastructure. Due to these factors, the western powers did have more resources to inflict and resist sabotage. That is not to say that it was necessarily the only reason, but it was certainly a significant factor.
support tends to wane when it leads to everyone everyone around you getting killed.
as for your last paragraph… i feel like there’s an obvious answer there, but the onus is probably still on you the back up those assertions.
