feddit.org

3 points

4 months ago

It also ignores that Socialism in AES states has generally resulted in mass reductions in poverty, increases in literacy, education, home ownership, and life expectancy.

report

prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

-3 points

4 months ago

Removed by mod

report

AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml

[ - ]

7 points

4 months ago

Removed by mod

report

[ - ]

-7 points

4 months ago

Do you think changing Mode of Production magically transforms levels of development? Typical liberal.

report

prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

3 points

4 months ago

Perfect, no response except to throw a question and “insult”

This is why you won’t be taken seriously ever.

report

[ - ]

4 points

4 months ago

I already answered you, living in the US is currently better than some AES states, because development isn’t something magical. However, I would absolutely pick an AES state over the US in the comimg years. Hell, the PRC is in many ways ahead of the US for the average worker already.

report

prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

-1 points

4 months ago

Serious question because it is relevant to the discussion, do you currently have a job?

Do you live in one of these western countries?

What is your personal frame of reference that tells you you’d have a better life than where you are in Cuba or Laos or North Korea?

What would china give you right now that you would move there for?

Please, be specific so I can understand.

Pretend you had a chance to convince me instead of angrily and frustratedly arguing your point in a defensive manner.

I believe in socialism, it’s been incorporated into democracy quite well actually and provided significant quality of life for its citizens.

Communism on the other hand has largely always moved to an authoritarian beat, China and Laos and Cuba and North Korea are all prime examples of this in the present day. Much like the two party system in the USA has hindered its democracy I don’t see how a one party system with strong central rule is not a HUGE step back from that. At least we have a semblance of choice and the mechanisms to fix what is broken.

Why do you prefer a form of government that takes choice away from its citizens?

report

∞🏳️‍⚧️Edie [it/its, she/her, fae/faer, love/loves, null/void, des/pair, none/use name, kitty]@lemmy.ml

[ - ]

6 points

4 months ago

Why do you prefer a form of government that takes choice away from its citizens?

We don’t, we support proletarian democracy, not bourgeoisie electoralism.

Anna L. Strong, This Soviet World, Chapter III: The Dictatorship

The heads of government in America are not the real rulers. I have talked with many of them from the President down. Some of them would really like to use power for the people. They feel baffled by their inability to do so; they blame other branches of government, legislatures, courts. But they haven’t analyzed the real reason. The difficulty is that they haven’t power to use. Neither the President nor Congress nor the common people, under any form of organization whatever, can legally dispose of the oil of Rockefeller or the gold in the vaults of Morgan. If they try, they will be checked by other branches of government, which was designed as a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent such “usurpation of power.” Private capitalists own the means of production and thus rule the lives of millions. Government, however chosen, is limited to the function of making regulations which will help capitalism run more easily by adjusting relations between property and protecting it against the “lawless” demands of non-owners. This constitutes what Marxists call the dictatorship of property. “The talk about pure democracy is but a bourgeois screen,” says Stalin, “to conceal the fact that equality between exploiters and exploited is impossible. . . . It was invented to hide the sores of capitalism . . . and lend it moral strength.”

report

[ - ]

2 points

4 months ago

Serious question because it is relevant to the discussion, do you currently have a job?

Yes, full-time, though the plight of the unemployed and unhoused is equally important. Not telling you any more, not doxxing myself. Additionally, it absolutely is not relevant.

Do you live in one of these western countries?

Yes.

What is your personal frame of reference that tells you you’d have a better life than where you are in Cuba or Laos or North Korea?

The US is a dying Empire. It has no long-term future, conditions are worsening. Disparity is rising and will continue to do so, and Real Wages will continue to stagnate. The world is already throwing the US off their backs at increasing rates.

Meanwhile, Socialism has stable growth over time that doesn’t depend on self-destructive systems like Capitalism or Imperialism.

I believe in socialism, it’s been incorporated into democracy quite well actually and provided significant quality of life for its citizens.

Social Democracy is not Socialism. I am not talking about Capitalism where “the government does some extra stuff.” Social Democracy in the Global North depends on Imperialism to support itself, and worker protections are crumbling as disparity rises. Social Democracy is a temporary concession.

Communism on the other hand has largely always moved to an authoritarian beat, China and Laos and Cuba and North Korea are all prime examples of this in the present day. Much like the two party system in the USA has hindered its democracy I don’t see how a one party system with strong central rule is not a HUGE step back from that. At least we have a semblance of choice and the mechanisms to fix what is broken.

Do you actually know how these countries function, democratically and politically? This isn’t a gotcha, I want to know to what extent you’re familiar so we can even begin to talk about them. Even then, North Korea isn’t a One-Party State.

Why do you prefer a form of government that takes choice away from its citizens?

I don’t, that’s why I am a Communist and not a Liberal. Come on, this was a useless gotcha.

report