Communism in theory vs in practice

I don't know if you've noticed, but Europe is sliding into fascism too, just not as quickly. Regulating capitalism treats the symptoms and not the disease, and so it can only ever bring temporary relief. The problems we are experiencing now are not the product of a broken system, they are the inevitable result of capitalist economics, no matter how restrained.

Fascism vs communism is a prime example of a false dichotomy.
- Communism is just socialism-flavored fascism.
  
  This is nothing more than a feeling that you have, and has no basis in fact. All the worst atrocities committed in the name of communism throughout history cannot possibly compare in scale or cruelty to the actions of even a single fascist state.
  
  In addition to the difference in scale there is a difference in motive. Communists have noble goals, but atrocities result from threat-induced paranoia and selfish opportunists co-opting revolutionary fervor. The atrocities of fascism are pure evil in both motive and action. Fascists seek to eliminate those that they deem inferior, and they carry this out with unimaginable cruelty and glee.
  
  This is 100% ahistorical, Communism has historically served the working class and opposed fascism while fascism has historically served Capitalists and oppressed workers and Communists. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
  
  @AeonFelis @vga @memes both are a version of totalitarianism
  
  "Totalitarianism" as a term was largely popularized in order to depict Communism and Nazism as "twin evils," when the reality is that Socialist countries have had dramatic democratization of the economy.
  
  @Cowbee @memes might be true, but by definition (A system of government in which the people have virtually no authority and the state wields absolute control) my comment is correct
  
  No, it isn't. The Soviet system dramatically expanded worker control over Tsarism and Capitalism.
  
  With such a straightforward definition of ‘totalitarianism’, one could argue that Imperial America is totalitarian.
  
  We can find much evidence for the dictatorship of the proletariat in the U.S.S.R., as
  
  The [Kremlin] regularly urged its people to criticize local conditions and their leaders, at least below a certain exalted level. For example, in March 1937 Stalin emphasized the importance of the party’s ‘ties to the masses’. To maintain them, it was necessary ‘to listen carefully to the voice of the masses, to the voice of rank and file members of the party, to the voice of the so-called “little people”, to the voice of ordinary folk [narod]’.¹⁷ The party newspaper Pravda went so far as to identify lack of criticism with enemies of the people: ‘Only an enemy is interested in seeing that we, the Bolsheviks […] do not notice actual reality […] Only an enemy […] strives to put the rose-coloured glasses of self-satisfaction over the eyes of our people.’¹⁸
  
  (Source. Click here for more.)

Yeah, or like they do in China.

Unfortunately for many parts of the world, it doesn't matter if you're trying to go full socialist or not, if you get in the way of multinational exploitation and neocolonialism, you're gonna get couped. There's no shortage of left-leaning non-socialists who have also been targeted by the CIA. Like Guatemala, where they just wanted to do basic land reform so farmers could work their own land, but Chiquita didn't like that so it became the origin of the term "Banana Republic."

What do they do in China, exactly? It looks like single-party fascist corporatism. If it's communism, why do they have a rising number of billionaires and worse conditions for workers than many european countries?
- China has a Socialist Market Economy. Large firms and key sectors like steel and banking are nearly entirely under public control, while there are a large number of self-employed people. They actually have a falling number of billionaires in the last couple years.
  
  As for worker conditions, Europe is Imperialist and many European countries act like landlords, and China is still a developing country, though rapidly developing.
- What do they do in China, exactly? It looks like single-party fascist corporatism.
  
  The funny thing about discussions about China's economy is that you can use pretty much any term to describe it as long as it's bad. If "socialist" or "communist" is understood to be a bad thing to those in the conversation, you can use those terms without objection, but you can also say stuff like "Feudalism" or "Fascist Corporatism" or "Colonialism" or "Capitalist" or "State Capitalist" or whatever tf else, it's all just vibes-based and the only requirement is that the vibes be bad.
  
  China has a mixed economy with a combination of state ownership and private investment, with the state maintaining a controlling share in certain key industries, and preventing (at least so far) economic elites from infiltrating the government for the purpose of widespread regulatory capture and deregulation. Billionaires exist but sometimes face real consequences for illegal activity, and the balance between public and private ownership tips more heavily towards public when compared to other countries such as those in Europe.
  
  The partial liberalization of the economy is meant to encourage economic development post-industrialization, and prevent the challenges the USSR faced with economic stagnation post-industrialization. Central planning works great if you're just trying to meet people's basic needs like food or shelter, but the demand for consumer goods is more fluid. This policy is also adapted to the global situation, China has benefitted greatly from industry moving there and by becoming a major trade partner of the US and other countries (while also holding the bulk of manufacturing output), that makes it difficult for outside forces to go to war or level sanctions/tariffs on them.
  
  It is not a "communist" country in the sense of having achieved communism (in this sense, a "communist country" is an inherent contradiction). It could be called a communist/socialist country in the sense that it is governed by (self-identified) communists. Socialism, or I should specify Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, aren't a set of specific policies but rather a materialist and class-based mode of analysis to be applied and adapted differently depending on material conditions.
  
  Some hardcore Maoists would argue that China's current system is a deviation from the correct socialist ideas, as espoused by Mao. However, there's also this odd branch of Westerners that don't like China's liberalized system because "it has billionaires," but also don't like what they had before under Mao when they didn't have billionaires, but also claim to dislike full-on capitalism - so as far as I can tell, they just dislike China regardless of what they do or don't do. I've yet to find any such person who's actually willing and capable to engage in a discussion of "what should they do/have done economically" as opposed to just bashing them. And in fact, when asked what kind of economic system they support, they'll often describe a mixed system similar to what China has, but then be like, "but not like that."
  
  I’ve yet to find any such person who’s actually willing and capable to engage in a discussion of “what should they do/have done economically” as opposed to just bashing them.
  
  I didn't say they weren't doing fine or that they shouldn't be doing what they're doing.
  
  I just said that they're not communists. This is not a bad thing! But lying about it is of course somewhat distasteful, especially for those people who think themselves as being communists.
  
  I didn’t say they weren’t doing fine or that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing.
  
  So your position is that their system is "Fascist Corporatism," but also... that's fine, actually?
  
  I just said that they’re not communists. This is not a bad thing! But lying about it is of course somewhat distasteful, especially for those people who think themselves as being communists.
  
  Whether they're "lying" is a matter of interpretation and ideological differences. Like, if I'm a hardcore, traditionalist Roman Catholic, maybe from my perspective, all Protestants are "lying" about being Christian because "true Christianity" means my interpretation of it. Likewise, if you're a hardcore Maoist, then maybe you'd argue that China is governed by revisionists who are "lying" about being communists.
  
  If we want to look at it from a relatively objective point of view, the largest number of self-identified communists in the world are Marxist-Leninists, who don't view China as "lying about being communist" but rather agree with or at least critically support their approach. So, idk, if you want to join some fringe Christian sect that claims every other sect as being heretical and themselves as the sole defender of the faith, or if you want to join some fringe communist group that denounces every other communist group as revisionist and themselves as the only "real" communists, then idk, you do you ig. But not everyone who believes different things from you is "lying."
  
  So your position is that their system is “Fascist Corporatism,” but also… that’s fine, actually?
  
  Great point. That was a mistake from my part. So what China is doing is indeed not fine at all, even though it kind of works for them.
  
  I'm sure that your branding of the Chinese economy is based on a very high degree of intellectual rigor and definitely not just pulling words out of your ass based on vibes.
  
  Well, you managed to make an even less intellectual comment as a reply, so kudos for that achievement.
  
  No, I didn't.
  
  I already explained to you how China's economy works based on actual facts. You completely ignored it and doubled down on vibes based nonsense that you didn't even bother to defend or explain in any way. Telling you you're wrong is not "less intellectual" than being blatantly wrong.
  
  As a reader btw, I appreciate your point of view. Don't get discouraged when your interlocutors put in less work than you. I think snuffing out the liberal fervor for capitalism by using examples where different systems are successful is vitally important. I'm just not very educated on it as I could be. People like you help with that!

Oh boy, another batch of centrists coming in from the Reddit shitstorm... This one oblivious to the fact that far right parties are gaining traction all over Europe.

typical european "we are a garden" centrist, i wonder how europe accumulated its capital on the first place!

This isn't true, though. You can't have a "little bit of Socialism" and a "little bit of Capitalism," Socialism and Capitalism are descriptors of overall economies. Regulation in a Capitalist system is still Capitalism, Europe in particular is Imperialist (and increasingly moving to fascism as they fade from relevance in the global stage).

Socialism, on the other hand, absolutely works, and is why the PRC is overtaking everyone else at the moment.

Yeah, but how is the quality of life for the average person in the PRC? Honest question, because I don't know. I'm American they would have us believe that the average Chinese citizen is living one step of from a factory slave.
- Varies dramatically depending on where you live, because China is an extremely rapidly developing country that was as poor as Haiti is today 100 years ago. Quality of life overall is good, and rising rapidly.
  
  I know this doesn't say actual statistics and stats, but watching videos that actually show China can help de-mystify it.
  
  China is an extremely rapidly developing country that was as poor as Haiti is today 100 years ago.
  
  I'd say 75, at the end of the Civil War. The firsthand descriptions of rural China from Fanshen come from around that period and are basically late-feudal, but ravaged by a few decades of major wars.
  
  Fair enough, good point comrade.
- I’m American they would have us believe that the average Chinese citizen is living one step of from a factory slave.
  
  Download RedNote and see for yourself. You'll never get a full picture from social media alone, but you can see a lot.
Not really sure about taking China as an example for something "working"...
- Why not? It's rapidly overtaking everyone else, and has made massive strides for workers. What would you call it?
  
  A place where human rights are not respected
  
  Can you elaborate? They have a better respect for human rights than the vast majority of states.

Needs v wants

Needs: healthcare, utilities, public transport, even a minimal but quality food source. Even to the point of utilitarian but working phones/devices. State ownership where profits are minimal but go back into the state. The services aren't necessarily free, but are run without massive shareholder payouts.

Wants: upgrades and luxuries. iPhones, treat foods, nice cars, silk bedding and those ridiculous marshmallow shoes everyone loves. Regulated but free market.

Now all your basic needs are covered by the community together. You could probably live a simple life with very little income. If you want luxury or fancy, feel free to work too get it.

I have been trying to put together a document that attempt this concept of ensuring the survival of people, while making money into something used for lifestyle upgrades. Also, heavy emphasis on wealth limits and preferring people over corporations. IMO, corporations are great for personal interests, but are beyond terrible when it comes to the wellbeing of people. Thus, we should make having a job optional, but rewarding.

UNIVERSAL RANKED INCOME
- Trying to design a Utopia by fiat has historically failed, just look at the Owenites. The great advancement with Marx was studying societal development and mastering it, so that we can work it into our favor, not by designing systems in a lab that may have no bearing in reality.
- Yo, how do you have lumberjack in the same tier as astronauts ? One goes to space, and other is a guy in flannel swinging ax in the woods lol
  
  High injury and fatality rates. An astronaut risks their life everytime they ride an occaisional rocket, but a lumberjack has to deal with falling trees on a daily basis.
  
  Ok, I see where you are going with that. I don't personally agree, but I see where you are coning from

Europe has the whole "pretend we're better than everyone else" into "kill all nonwhites" bullshit going, better kill em before they hitler again

you can have a bit of capitalism and a bit of socialism in a healthy mix of free trade economy with regulations

I used to believe this, and I also used to argue against socialists on the same exact grounds.

At some point I noticed that all those nice little bits of socialism that rounded off the edges of capitalism kept getting rolled back. Then I read more about how those safety nets were put up in the first place -- I found out they were all bought with the blood of people much farther left than me, and I saw how violently capitalists opposed them. I found that a lot of the reason those safety nets were so nice for so long in the Global North was that our countries were slaughtering people by the millions (again, a lot of leftists) elsewhere in the world to prop capitalism up.

At that point I stopped just nodding along to all the campfire stories about socialist countries. Maybe, like my standard U.S. education had missed a lot of pretty important things about how capitalism works, it had similarly missed some important things about how socialism works.

if you do not regulate the free market

Wtf are you talking about. There is no such thing as a free market.

Sir, this is lemmy. Moderate politics are highly upvoted and deeply resented here.

Supporting a system where workers are held down in favor of corporate greed is not and never will be “moderate”

This is a sane take. This is the only form of economy that actually works well.

We are seeing the capitalist West's descent into fascism. The direct proof of the 1930's maxim, "fascism is capitalism in decay" between the AFD, Orban, Erdogan, Starmer being basically indistinguishable from a Tory, Macron pulling a Hindenburg by using the presidential power to appoint a prime minister that will unify the center-right liberals with the far-right to prevent the left from having any power in government, and Meloni being an acceptable, reasonable western leader because she follows through with whatever US foreign policy is on offer. We are seeing a direct breakdown because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (law of diminishing returns, applied to profit, if you are a child that believes in neoclassical economics). So profit has to be sought out by purely national protectionism and reshoring since there is not a growing pie, but you just have to claim a greater slice of the pie. Capitalism on any sufficient timescale is Fascism, the destruction of WW2 and the Marshall Plan reset this "diminishing return on profitability" so that we are reaching the same state of the 1920s. But since there isn't a strong socialist movement we have to modify Gramsci's assessment. "The old world is dying, a new one is completely stillborn, now and forever is the time of monsters"
Is-ought fallacy? Understand me correctly, I like the EU system, but to pretend that it's the end of history and that we've reached perfection in this space is wrong.
Like we do in Europe

This is the only form of economy that actually works with great success.

sarcastic french laugh
No, Imperialism doesn't actually work well and is failing, meanwhile Socialism is still working and on the rise, such as in the PRC.
Unless the population pyramid is destroyed, but that won't happen right?