You mean the same People’s Republic of China that… checks notes
- also has a huge wealth gap
- expensive healthcare
- you have to pre-pay for any treatments, including emergency room treatments (they will refuse to to treat you if you don’t have the money). That shit you see about China having “Free/Socialised Universal Healthcare”? If you actually lived in China, you’d know that doesn’t exist.
- most people have no health insurance to cover medical expenses
- have a strict control of movement within the country. You can’t even freely move outside where your 户口 (Hukou - a Household Registration System) is. And migrant workers are essentially treated as an immigrant, even though they are citizens, they face discrimination.
- most of the welfare programs you see in the western world doesn’t exist in PRC
It’s just State Capitalism
I hate know people go USA bad and then pivot towards PRC. I’m like, the EU is right there. Norway, Finland, and all these countries are actually implementing some socialist policies. Even though they are still capitalist, its the most socialist and egalitarian the world that exists on a large scale (beyond just a small commune)
I mean, China still have an all men Politiburo. Zero women in positions where it actually matters. China is literally doing the “Anti-Woke”/“Anti-DEI” thing the US is doing.
My understanding is that Cuba is actually unbelievably based especially considering US hostility
Easily the most grating excuse. ‘It’s never been tried!’ But they tried to try. Then what happened?
These same people will point to capitalist democracies failing after a century or two, and say, ah-HAH, this inevitable endpoint disproves the entire philosophy! Does this pragmatic analysis apply to what happens in places they like? Does it fuck.
Listen, it’s not like liberal democracy gets a pass. Arguing for a republic must have been a right bitch when the only clear example was Oliver Cromwell’s fumbling efforts to not be a king. Even after the American revolution went pretty well, the French tripped on their own dicks, straight into a row of guillotines. Government is hard because people are bastards. No safety in anarchy, either, since communes tend to get rolled by the nearest power structure.
There is no system that can’t be spoiled by a big enough asshole.
What a shock it’s cowbee. Fucking one-note
Thank you Khmer Rouge… very based, very cool
You’re all missing the point of the paraphrase - communism could be a good thing if anyone tried it… it’s sarcasm.
It means that as yet, nobody has actually tried communism. In other words, there has yet to be a communist state - none of the ones the west considers to be ‘communist’ are actually communist, neither in ideology, or treatment of their people.
maybe you’re aware, but “communist state” is an oxymoron since communism is distinguished by being stateless …
My impression of the situation is that the Russian Revolution was attempting a communist revolution, and while the Bolshevik concept of Marxism was very particular (as was the Menshevik conception, as is probably most Marxisms), it’s unclear what you mean exactly by “actually tried communism” - are you saying Lenin, Trotsky, and the Bolsheviks never had communism on the mind, that the revolution never actually intended to bring about communism?
Or are you saying the Bolsheviks never tried skipping straight to implementing the communism Marx theorized about because they focused only on the socialism Marx claimed was necessary and would bring about communism naturally, and thus they only tried socialism but never communism?
The Bolsheviks were already the radicals willing to skip ahead and attempt the revolution without the necessary liberal revolutions as a prerequisite. The Mensheviks were even more committed stageists who believed the aristocracy first had to undergo liberalization as Marx theorized before it would be ripe for the seeds of the socialism which would then provide the fertile conditions for communism.
It’s all the CIA’s fault!
mental gymnastics intensifies
to be fair, the CIA did play a large role in undermining communist / socialist-identified governments, and in turn the authoritarians exploited the resultant legitimate fears into justifying slave camps, suppression of civil rights like a free press, due process, etc.
Its also because people aren’t not flawless, socialism/communism need almost everyone to be good people to succeed, both the leaders and the followers.
My dad told me the people in factories (in China) would just slack off when the supervisors aren’t looking.
The people in his factory said: 做也三十六，不做也三十六
“Work and you get paid ¥36, Don’t work and you also get paid ¥36” (Currency in Yuan/Renminbi, pay is paid monthly, but this is a long time ago so its probably equivalent to like ¥2000 or more these days)
I don’t think a utopia will work if this is what people do. People are selfish, from the leaders, to the workers, everyone.
Villages over-report their productions, then they have feasts to celebrate because they think there’s a surplus.
Both external and internal struggles caused communism to fail
Sure, and like 5000 years of monarchy and feudalism stood in opposition to classical liberalism. At a certain point you just need to get good or go back to the drawing board.
yeah, German Idealism turned out to not be the best theoretical foundation for predicting the future of human society - unlike how Hegel thinks about human history in a linear fashion, we are not always moving in some guaranteed direction, nor are the societies that pre-date aristocracy “primitive”.
EDIT: I misunderstood your comment. Monarchy did stand in opposition to liberalism, the difference is that liberalism was backed by people with great amounts of wealth and power - the shift to liberalism was more like a change in hands from foreign colonial powers to local moneyed elites. The problem is that socialism as a proletarian revolution does not appeal to the wealthy and powerful, so it’s not surprising socialism hasn’t received the same support liberalism has. The closest we got was something like FDR’s social liberalism, where some wealthy folks realized some amount of social services help stabilize the political situation, and that this is good for them (property rights and wealth are more secure in a stable society than in one marked by constant threat of revolution or reactionary coups).
But I wouldn’t call that socialism in the Marxist sense, it does not have communism as a goal for example.
The slave camps and suppressions of civil rights predate the CIA, and the CIA’s predecessor as well.
The CIA has done a lot of shit, but those horrors were home-grown on the Soviet end.
They only failed because they had to exist within the context of capitalist hegemony!
November Kelly: “Damn, I hate when I have to exist within a context.”
To be fair, Cowbee didn’t specify that they successfully tried it!
Blablabla but that wasn’t actually communism but authoritative democrapublic federalopol!
Technically it could be argued that they attempted to implement it, even if they failed 🤷
I agree with this, I don’t think Lenin for example was somehow inauthentic in their socialism / communism even if their implementation often fell short of their espoused ideals; I just think the attempts to make it work failed for various reasons.
(Maybe some of those reasons have to do with the ideology, e.g. vanguardism might pose a greater risk of the revolution being hijacked by a corrupt insider group - maybe Stalin was more inevitable given Lenin’s commitments to the vanguard; maybe commitments to viewing the revolution as a “totalitarianism of the proletariat” and insisting on centralizing power makes it easier for the state apparatus to be hijacked and used against the interests of the average person, and so on).
