• Graylitic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is absolutely not the case, Socialism and Communism are more relevant than ever as the decay of Capitalism becomes more and more apparent. This is an incredibly “lib” take, so to speak.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I dunno, capitalist social democracies seem quite nice compared to socialist counties.

      • Graylitic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They are nice to live in, generally. They are also developed countries that can only exist due to the US’s Military presence as a peacemaking force, and require economic Imperialism on their own part throughout less developed countries via companies like Nestlé in order to actually generate the wealth needed to provide for their generous Social Safety nets within Capitalism. Additionally, the Nordic countries are seeing skyrocketing disparity over time.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s somewhat either/or thinking when the emergent ideal is capitalism held in check by sane and compassionate social policies. You could call some of the latter socialistic if you want. But where in the world is Communism providing anyone a relevant alternative to the “decay” of capitalism? Capitalism is in its energetic teenage years still, in Asia, if you’ve noticed.

      • Graylitic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I would not call Social Programs “socialistic.” For Asia, China is the dominating economy and is heading down the path of Socialism. Capitalist economies like South Korea and Japan are heading downward, with extreme rates of suicide, rising fascism, and massive disparity.

        Communism itself isn’t merely an “alternative” to Capitalism, it’s the end result of the failures of Capitalism, after Socialism provides the ground for it to blossom from.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          China embraced capitalism because it’s economy was dead in the water. China has not ever been less socialist since the commies first took over.

          Communism is a thought experiment and has no place in the real world.

          • Graylitic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            China has stated intentions of becoming fully Socialist by 2050 and Communist by 2100, according to the CPC. Doesn’t seem dead in the water to me.

            Additionally, that’s just China. In places where Capitalism has been on a steady decline, such as America, Socialism and Communism are gaining in popularity among the masses. Capitalism is unsustainable and leads to massive inequality and inefficient allocation of resources, which leads to crisis.

              • Graylitic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Gotta love not having an actual counter, so you just down vote and feign superiority. Be a little more self-aware next time, lol

        • scarabic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          China has only moved away from a state-run economy in the last 50 years, resulting in its current, larger and much more dynamic economy. It’s probably the world’s best current example of a country abandoning communism for capitalism, and reaping the benefits. There is wealth inequality, but fewer people are starving. All they’re keeping from their former regime is centralized single party political control.

          Under economic Communism they proved over and over that a central government can’t command a entire set of industries and markets better than they can run themselves. People starved in the tens of millions finding this out. An uptick in suicide rates is nothing by comparison.

          • Graylitic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Quick few things:

            -The CPC brought in Capitalists to rapidly develop, while maintaining full control and refusing to let Capitalists control the state. That’s why it’s incredibly authoritarian there, to prevent the Capitalists from controlling the state. Socialism is supposed to come after Capitalism, not Feudalism.

            -The CPC has stated intentions to become fully Socialist by 2050 and Communist by 2100.

            -Even under Mao, they weren’t “economically Communist.” They still had a state, still had money, and still had classes. They were Socialist, and still are, just with more of a mixed market.

            -Mao was an idiot, but it wasn’t Socialism or Communism that caused the starvation. It started as a naturally occurring famine (the last of its kind in China, actually), but Mao responded so stupidly he told his men to kill Sparrows that were eating rice. Well, those Sparrows were holding the bugs back, and without the Sparrows the bugs ate far more rice. Is that Communism? When no Sparrows? Or one really stupid leader?

            Finally, my eggs aren’t all in the China basket. I’m not a massive China stan like some people here, I’m very critical of them. Socialism and Communism are gaining in popularity in other places where Capitalism is declining, such as America.

          • Farvana@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, what they proved is it’s hard as fuck to go from zero industry to the most industry when most of the world’s wealthy want you to fail. Famine was and is a real societal threat and we forget that it happened regularly not that long ago.

            • scarabic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              There’s no way I’m going to let you characterize the Great Leap Forward as “famine happens.” That is absolutely criminal apologism.