Some leaders of a country indeed do not have its best interests in mind because they’re self-interested. This is why it helps to have an educated public, and a democratic system of governance. When I look at all the countries subjugated by imperialists, I notice that each one of them has its own reasons for failing and succeeding, that’s all I am saying. It’s easy to distract your citizens by saying that all your problems are the fault of those greedy capitalists.
It is not questionable that Socialism was better for the Soviets than Tsarism or Capitalism. This is an established fact, as life expectancy doubled, literacy rates over tripled to over 99% (more than any western country), science and technology dramatically improved, wealth disparity lowered and total wealth raised dramatically. The return of Capitalism caused 7 million excess deaths.
You’re whitewashing history. Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model. There have been many analyses on the quality of life under the Soviet Union, and I’ll specifically mention only these sources since you’re so intent on painting a picture of harmony and glory
I am not interested in “winning” for one economic tool or another. What I don’t like is someone pretending the bad stuff didn’t happen, or blaming all the bad stuff on someone else. It’s childish and disingenuous.
As for the idea that “individualism” is punished in Socialism, the reality is that individualism can better flourish under it. There is no need to have Capitalists dictate production and exchange, rather than the whole of society. I think it would benefit you greatly to read some basic theory and history of AES countries if you want to bat against them in service of something else.
No, this is just rose glasses idealism and isn’t backed by any facts or history. What is backed by facts is that humans are greedy, self-interested and self-preserving in any scenario.
From a source (linked below):
As the 1990s progressed, the Stalinist period and the first half of the twentieth century in general increasingly retained the attention of scholars interested in the Soviet Union. Everyday Soviet life was seen as a history of repression, rationing, privation, famine, “survival strategies,” control, and social stratification. It was intimately tied to the campaign for Soviet culturedness (kul’turnost’), meaning the inculcation of proper manners and taste, which began in the second half of the 1930s. In these years, the regime recognized the legitimacy of consumption, notably through slogans proclaiming that life “became better and gayer” with the introduction of luxury consumer goods (Soviet champagne, caviar, chocolate, perfume, etc.), which were nonetheless accessible only to groups that the regime considered privileged.
Indeed, the distribution of objects as rewards was central to the social policies of Communist countries. Following the October Revolution, the distribution of noble and bourgeois property among workers and Bolshevik leaders at all levels, which was part of an urban campaign for housing redistribution, lent concrete meaning to the reversal of social hierarchies and confirmed the right of the neediest citizens to oppress those who were once the most privileged within the latter’s own apartments, which were now transformed into communal residences.
Soviet beggars found themselves in an ambivalent situation. The authorities wanted to exclude them from the future Communist society, but, incapable of solving the begging problem, they simply concealed it from the 1930s until the mid-1950s so as not to contradict the USSR’s image as a prosperous state —even as they made it impossible to devise any form of welfare policy towards them. The launch of a program aimed at solving the begging problem in the second half of the 1950s led to a debate in the press, which exposed the contradictions between the official discourse and social reality.
The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.
The countries aren’t necessarily underdeveloped, they are over-exploited. The absolute vast majority of the resources and value they creste is taken for the Global North, the fact that the United States and other Western Powers regularly commit regime change isn’t somehow the fault of the Imperialized. This is a monstrous view of the world you have, which is why I asked you to clarify yourself several times. You claim it a lack of education, and yet don’t see the connection between that and all of the Socialist and post-Socialist countries having the highest literacy rates in the world? Under-education is the tool by which Imperialists keep Imperialized countries docile, and when they start to take control of their own resources like Burkina Faso under Sankara, they pull regime change.
Secondly, the USSR. They didn’t go from “relatively little” to “less little,” they went from a semi-feudal backwater to the second largest economy in the world, and did so while under constant siege. Again, life expectancy doubled literacy rates over tripled, they managed to take on the vast majority of the Nazis (80% of Nazi deaths were on the Eastern Front) and took Berlin, healthcare and education was free, working hours were shorter than the US with greater vacation days, all with rapid economic growth and low inequality. Linking right-wing think tanks designed to massage narratives can’t erase the numerical facts.
You were linked many extensive primary and scholarly sources by people like @Edie@lemmy.ml and you return with right-wing think tanks, which is rude at best and shows a lack of care. The bare minimum you could do is read Anticommunism & Wonderland, which is a subset of Blackshirts and Reds, though you really should read any of the books provided.
Finally, again, the Nordic Model is not Socialism. The Working Class is oppressed by the bourgeoisie within the countries, and the Nordic Countries heavily exploit the Global South. Not everyone can copy the Nordic Model because it requires mass international exploitation, which you argued is the fault of the Imperialized in an earlier section, so I guess that clarifies your worldview a bit. In short: brutal expropriation and Imperialism is a good thing, more should do it even harder, and it’s the fault of the Imperialized for not picking them up by their bootstraps (despite them picking up the Global North by its bootstraps, and the Global North acting like they earned the riches they stole).
Try to reread this comment section, and legitimately ask yourself if half-assed right-wing think tank articles are better than Primary and Scholarly secondary sources, and if you want to be that dedicated to justifying brutal exploitation and encouraging more of it.
Second, the best way to understand your weak spots is through your ideological opponents. I don’t care for capitalism or socialism per se, I just hate disingenuous propaganda.
The so-called right wing platforms are simply stating historical facts from primary sources.
The Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich! Only the people are poor. But there’s billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken. There’s been billions for 400 years! The capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries. These countries are not underdeveloped, they’re overexploited!
Exactly thanks, and that’s exactly what I’ve been saying! The exploitation comes from within the countries first, the outsiders help instigate it because it makes sense from a game theory pov. However, many nation states stand as counter examples of how they escaped that.
.
At this point I think your ignorance is intentional. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a person to understand something when their self-interest prevents them from understanding it.
I think oppression politics exist solely in the hopes of redistributing wealth to a new cadre of ghouls who won’t be any better than the first. That’s not social justice, it’s revenge.
No, you have it opposite. More powerful nations come in and set up corrupt structures to maintain it, such as the Fascist Batista in Cuba for US interests before he was overthrown by the Communists.
What do you mean? It’s commonly known that Western Europe and the US colonized the world and rode on the backs of slavery for centuries, the modern form of which is Imperialism. Cuba is a great example, the US installed the Batista regime to profit off of slave labor and tried to send death squads to thwart the Cuban Revolution, which ultimately failed, leaving Cubans free from direct exploitation by the US Empire. Cuba is still subject to brutal embargo because the US Empire never forgave Cubans for freeing themselves from slavery and hurting US profits.
The U.S. or western nations were hardly the first to do it, but the way things came together at that point in history certainly helped.
Regardless, many countries which exploited the trans-Atlantic slave trade aren’t even that successful now, relative to the U.S. so it’s not just slavery which made America what it is.
Again, I don’t know how to explain this in clearer terms, the Global South has been intentionally overexploited and looted by the Global North for centuries. It is the fault of countries you uphold as role models as well as others like the United States.
I think that’s a fair point, to a degree. But again to my point, that’s a huge generalization and ignores many, many successful countries which overcame incredible odds. It’s important to understand why their success happened so similar models can be used in other countries. And no, their problems aren’t just “exploitation”, that’s just wishful and simplistic thinking. Is there exploitation, yes. Is it because of “western nations”, not necessarily. The corruption and greed is an inherent problem in many of these countries, it existed without the help of outsiders.
Depending on countries to “overcome incredible odds,” ie violently eject colonizers and imperialists, and tacitly supporting said system of Imperialism makes little sense. Their success happened because of violently ejecting Imperialists.
Secondly, I am not talking about exploitation within Imperialized countries, but by Imperialist countries. Shacking up countries in debt traps and using loopholes to sieze infrastructure like ports and natural resources is how the Global North violently steals from the Global South, and maintains this with many military bases to prevent resistance.
If you don’t want to admit that some of these countries are wholly disinterested in their own people, then don’t. Countries like those in BRIC, minus S, and only including the name-only ones are great examples of the kind of countries which overcame possible exploitation.
So no, it’s not just an outside baddie exploitation problem. Do those countries have their own issues, yes. Do they have the best systems, no. Does any country? Not necessarily.
Let’s be honest, a lot of political games make fools of us all, and it’s hard to judiciously determine the optimal system for economic development or social development outside of the context of history. Nothing has happened in a vacuum, and everything is tainted by history. The only thing we can hope for is fairness, justice and equity for everyone as best as we can provide, while not sacrificing the self-actualization of others. What really triggers me though is how people say disingenuous things about their ideology of choice, and that just makes me want to say the counterpoint, even if I agree on some aspects.
Countries are made up of people. People care about their fellow countrymen, the difference here is that Africa and Latin America have been utterly looted and colonized for centuries, the colonizers setting up skeleton states to maintain imperialism and neocolonialism. This is not a culture issue, a race issue, or a moral failing, but an economic problem caused by centuries of looting and pillaging.
As for BRICS? China had a Communist revolution to throw out the Imperialists, same as Russia (who re-nationalized after the West swooped in during the fall of the USSR, now resulting in Nationalist Capitalism), India largely has had an incomplete overthrow of Imperialists and as such has seen further impoverishment, and more.
You actually agree with us and with Chinese Communists, who believe everyone’s path to a better society will be different. However, where we differ is that we have spent the time studying history, theory new and old, and have come to the conclusion that all of these different solutions will come in the form of Socialism with various Characteristics. Additionally, we don’t blame victims, but oppressors.
Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model.
What bigger picture is there than improvements in material quality of life conditions, like calories available and infant mortality rates and life expectancy and literacy levels and gender equality and and and? And what is that but the socioeconomic conditions? Before the revolution this was an preindustrial, illiterate, feudal state of desperately precarious peasants. And after the revolution it was war-torn, and continuously threatened by imperialist states, and then, not long after, invaded by the WWII Axis powers. And still the material conditions of the masses improved by leaps & bounds compared to their starting position.
The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.
Again, the “Nordic model” has been predicated on spoils of neocolonialism. How do the neocolonized feel about their subjugation and oppression? And under decades of grinding neoliberalism, the social safety nets have been eroding all over the imperial core, and the bourgeoisie aren’t going to give them back even if they could (which they can’t, especially now that the empire is deteriorating). These are bourgeois democracies, they’re not proletarian ones.
Some leaders of a country indeed do not have its best interests in mind because they’re self-interested. This is why it helps to have an educated public, and a democratic system of governance. When I look at all the countries subjugated by imperialists, I notice that each one of them has its own reasons for failing and succeeding, that’s all I am saying. It’s easy to distract your citizens by saying that all your problems are the fault of those greedy capitalists.
You’re whitewashing history. Yes, when you go from relatively less to relatively more, you’ll experience improvements like life expectancy and child height. But that doesn’t mean anything when compared to the bigger picture of a failing and disingenuous social and economic model. There have been many analyses on the quality of life under the Soviet Union, and I’ll specifically mention only these sources since you’re so intent on painting a picture of harmony and glory
I am not interested in “winning” for one economic tool or another. What I don’t like is someone pretending the bad stuff didn’t happen, or blaming all the bad stuff on someone else. It’s childish and disingenuous.
No, this is just rose glasses idealism and isn’t backed by any facts or history. What is backed by facts is that humans are greedy, self-interested and self-preserving in any scenario.
From a source (linked below):
https://shs.cairn.info/article/E_ANNA_682_0305?lang=en
One more for reference:
The Nordic model isn’t a socialism model which works for socialism purists, but it makes the most sense for those who don’t want to be subjected to oppression from one source or another.
The countries aren’t necessarily underdeveloped, they are over-exploited. The absolute vast majority of the resources and value they creste is taken for the Global North, the fact that the United States and other Western Powers regularly commit regime change isn’t somehow the fault of the Imperialized. This is a monstrous view of the world you have, which is why I asked you to clarify yourself several times. You claim it a lack of education, and yet don’t see the connection between that and all of the Socialist and post-Socialist countries having the highest literacy rates in the world? Under-education is the tool by which Imperialists keep Imperialized countries docile, and when they start to take control of their own resources like Burkina Faso under Sankara, they pull regime change.
Secondly, the USSR. They didn’t go from “relatively little” to “less little,” they went from a semi-feudal backwater to the second largest economy in the world, and did so while under constant siege. Again, life expectancy doubled literacy rates over tripled, they managed to take on the vast majority of the Nazis (80% of Nazi deaths were on the Eastern Front) and took Berlin, healthcare and education was free, working hours were shorter than the US with greater vacation days, all with rapid economic growth and low inequality. Linking right-wing think tanks designed to massage narratives can’t erase the numerical facts.
You were linked many extensive primary and scholarly sources by people like @Edie@lemmy.ml and you return with right-wing think tanks, which is rude at best and shows a lack of care. The bare minimum you could do is read Anticommunism & Wonderland, which is a subset of Blackshirts and Reds, though you really should read any of the books provided.
Finally, again, the Nordic Model is not Socialism. The Working Class is oppressed by the bourgeoisie within the countries, and the Nordic Countries heavily exploit the Global South. Not everyone can copy the Nordic Model because it requires mass international exploitation, which you argued is the fault of the Imperialized in an earlier section, so I guess that clarifies your worldview a bit. In short: brutal expropriation and Imperialism is a good thing, more should do it even harder, and it’s the fault of the Imperialized for not picking them up by their bootstraps (despite them picking up the Global North by its bootstraps, and the Global North acting like they earned the riches they stole).
Try to reread this comment section, and legitimately ask yourself if half-assed right-wing think tank articles are better than Primary and Scholarly secondary sources, and if you want to be that dedicated to justifying brutal exploitation and encouraging more of it.
Some of those countries don’t even have plumbing.
Second, the best way to understand your weak spots is through your ideological opponents. I don’t care for capitalism or socialism per se, I just hate disingenuous propaganda.
The so-called right wing platforms are simply stating historical facts from primary sources.
Michael Parenti: Africa is rich. Quote from a similar speech:
Exactly thanks, and that’s exactly what I’ve been saying! The exploitation comes from within the countries first, the outsiders help instigate it because it makes sense from a game theory pov. However, many nation states stand as counter examples of how they escaped that.
It seems you’re going way out of your way to aggressively not understand how imperialism and neocolonialism work, nor compradors’ role in it.
.
At this point I think your ignorance is intentional. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, it is difficult to get a person to understand something when their self-interest prevents them from understanding it.
I think oppression politics exist solely in the hopes of redistributing wealth to a new cadre of ghouls who won’t be any better than the first. That’s not social justice, it’s revenge.
No, you have it opposite. More powerful nations come in and set up corrupt structures to maintain it, such as the Fascist Batista in Cuba for US interests before he was overthrown by the Communists.
Oh please, forget it. You think they didn’t do that in countries which succeeded?
What do you mean? It’s commonly known that Western Europe and the US colonized the world and rode on the backs of slavery for centuries, the modern form of which is Imperialism. Cuba is a great example, the US installed the Batista regime to profit off of slave labor and tried to send death squads to thwart the Cuban Revolution, which ultimately failed, leaving Cubans free from direct exploitation by the US Empire. Cuba is still subject to brutal embargo because the US Empire never forgave Cubans for freeing themselves from slavery and hurting US profits.
Many countries used other people as slaves, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
The U.S. or western nations were hardly the first to do it, but the way things came together at that point in history certainly helped.
Regardless, many countries which exploited the trans-Atlantic slave trade aren’t even that successful now, relative to the U.S. so it’s not just slavery which made America what it is.
https://www.statista.com/chart/22057/countries-most-active-trans-atlantic-slave-trade/
Now days slavery is not just a west only problem though. But the west is more honest about its history than most in this regard.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-that-still-have-slavery
Again, I don’t know how to explain this in clearer terms, the Global South has been intentionally overexploited and looted by the Global North for centuries. It is the fault of countries you uphold as role models as well as others like the United States.
I think that’s a fair point, to a degree. But again to my point, that’s a huge generalization and ignores many, many successful countries which overcame incredible odds. It’s important to understand why their success happened so similar models can be used in other countries. And no, their problems aren’t just “exploitation”, that’s just wishful and simplistic thinking. Is there exploitation, yes. Is it because of “western nations”, not necessarily. The corruption and greed is an inherent problem in many of these countries, it existed without the help of outsiders.
Depending on countries to “overcome incredible odds,” ie violently eject colonizers and imperialists, and tacitly supporting said system of Imperialism makes little sense. Their success happened because of violently ejecting Imperialists.
Secondly, I am not talking about exploitation within Imperialized countries, but by Imperialist countries. Shacking up countries in debt traps and using loopholes to sieze infrastructure like ports and natural resources is how the Global North violently steals from the Global South, and maintains this with many military bases to prevent resistance.
If you don’t want to admit that some of these countries are wholly disinterested in their own people, then don’t. Countries like those in BRIC, minus S, and only including the name-only ones are great examples of the kind of countries which overcame possible exploitation.
So no, it’s not just an outside baddie exploitation problem. Do those countries have their own issues, yes. Do they have the best systems, no. Does any country? Not necessarily.
Let’s be honest, a lot of political games make fools of us all, and it’s hard to judiciously determine the optimal system for economic development or social development outside of the context of history. Nothing has happened in a vacuum, and everything is tainted by history. The only thing we can hope for is fairness, justice and equity for everyone as best as we can provide, while not sacrificing the self-actualization of others. What really triggers me though is how people say disingenuous things about their ideology of choice, and that just makes me want to say the counterpoint, even if I agree on some aspects.
Countries are made up of people. People care about their fellow countrymen, the difference here is that Africa and Latin America have been utterly looted and colonized for centuries, the colonizers setting up skeleton states to maintain imperialism and neocolonialism. This is not a culture issue, a race issue, or a moral failing, but an economic problem caused by centuries of looting and pillaging.
As for BRICS? China had a Communist revolution to throw out the Imperialists, same as Russia (who re-nationalized after the West swooped in during the fall of the USSR, now resulting in Nationalist Capitalism), India largely has had an incomplete overthrow of Imperialists and as such has seen further impoverishment, and more.
You actually agree with us and with Chinese Communists, who believe everyone’s path to a better society will be different. However, where we differ is that we have spent the time studying history, theory new and old, and have come to the conclusion that all of these different solutions will come in the form of Socialism with various Characteristics. Additionally, we don’t blame victims, but oppressors.
The common thread in successful countries is not overthrowing of “imperialists”, it’s nationalism.
What bigger picture is there than improvements in material quality of life conditions, like calories available and infant mortality rates and life expectancy and literacy levels and gender equality and and and? And what is that but the socioeconomic conditions? Before the revolution this was an preindustrial, illiterate, feudal state of desperately precarious peasants. And after the revolution it was war-torn, and continuously threatened by imperialist states, and then, not long after, invaded by the WWII Axis powers. And still the material conditions of the masses improved by leaps & bounds compared to their starting position.
Again, the “Nordic model” has been predicated on spoils of neocolonialism. How do the neocolonized feel about their subjugation and oppression? And under decades of grinding neoliberalism, the social safety nets have been eroding all over the imperial core, and the bourgeoisie aren’t going to give them back even if they could (which they can’t, especially now that the empire is deteriorating). These are bourgeois democracies, they’re not proletarian ones.