Socialism ends up causing all the problems you think it's gonna solve. Name one time in history that it was successful.
What on Earth are you talking about? This is utterly vibes based.
Socialism factually does work this way.
I completely agree with you on ACAB in capitalist countries, for the same reasons you mentioned, but cops in "actually existing socialist" countries like Russian and China are no better. They still use authoritarian violence to oppress anyone who steps out of line with the will of the State. There are many, many historic and more contemporary examples of socialist countries using the [secret] police and/or troops to quell dissent from unions, anarchists, and other leftist groups, because anyone who protests the actions of the State, no matter how legitimately, is considered to be an enemy of the State, whether that State is capitalist or not.
Russia the Russian Federation, or Russia the USSR? Very different deal there.
Either way, I feel like this is vibes based analysis. Committing crime is illegal, yes. Even Anarchists like in Revolutionary Catalonia punished criminals, even putting them in labor camps. Would ACAB apply to Anarchists? No, I would argue not, just like I would say ACAB wouldn't directly apply to a Socialist State.
The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is stark, a Socialist State is run by the Workers, rather than a Capitalist State run by the bourgeoisie. An analysis of Capitalism, it's accumulation-based nature, and how this impacts the state, is necessary analysis.
What do you think of Chekism?
In theory. Never works in practice.
Socialism works in theory and practice, Capitalism does not.
Capitalism works if the systems goal is to accumulate wealth to monopolies and the capitalists.
It does not, because it contains within itself the necessity of its decline due to factors like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.
We can always colonize other planets, if they exist. /s
China, Cuba, Vietnam…
Those are your success stories? Fucking laughable how stupid you are.
Despite having less than a quarter of China's population, the U.S. also has the highest overall prison population at more than two million. China's is approximately 1.7 million. Globally, the U.S. accounts for 4% of the population and 25% of prisoners.
Not only does the U.S. have the highest incarceration rate in the world; every single U.S. state incarcerates more people per capita than virtually any independent democracy on earth. To be sure, states like New York and Massachusetts appear progressive in their incarceration rates compared to states like Louisiana, but compared to the rest of the world, every U.S. state relies too heavily on prisons and jails to respond to crime.
For one, the US is a terrible example for incarceration rates in any case. If you look at Europe, the incarceration rate on average is very comparable and in many Western European countries like Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. it’s closer to half that, sometimes even less than half.
And also, China has a comparatively huge number of political prisoners and some places in China (particularly where a lot of Uyghurs happen to live) have incarceration rates of more than 3700 per 100000.. That’s a lot higher than the US and more than double than even the US‘s incarceration happiest state Louisiana with ~1400/100000.
And even ignoring that, I wouldn’t use China as a great example for a socialist state either, for the reasons that they have a totalitarian government that doesn’t like it very much if you don’t like them and that they very much do take part in capitalism, being the worlds cheap production plant.
the US is a terrible example for incarceration rates in any case.
The United States leads the world in total number of people incarcerated, with more than 2 million prisoners nationwide (per data released in October 2021 by World Prison Brief). This number is equivalent to roughly 25% of the world's total prison population and leads to an incarceration rate of 629 people per 100,000—the highest rate in the world.
The Uyghur situation is immaterial to the original comment of whether socialism works.
If the uyghur situation is immaterial then so is incarceration rate in general. Especially since there are a bunch of capitalist countries with a significantly lower incarceration rate than China.
And if they say they’re socialist it must of course be true. Authoritarian regimes have never misrepresented themselves ever. /s
The prison industrial complex (PIC) is a term we use to describe the overlapping interests of government and industry that use surveillance, policing, and imprisonment as solutions to economic, social and political problems.source
I‘m not defending capitalism, I’m just saying that China shouldn‘t be the system we praise as a good example.
The same way, I’m not defending the PIC or the US‘s incarceration rates. I’m just saying, if you want a positive example for how prisons should be run, don’t look at a state that currently runs concentration camps. Look at countries with actually low incarceration rates like the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Switzerland or the Netherlands, that place their focus on reintegration not punishment, don’t have political prisoners, treat their inmates like human beings and also generally don’t have privately run prisons that "need" to be profitable.
Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Concerning the International Situation
What does that have to do with there discussion at hand?
All of those examples were successful in comparison to what came before. The ROC had a life expectancy in the 30's, and made no effort to address the basic needs of the vast majority of Chinese people. Cuba had a corrupt, authoritarian gangster state under Batista. Vietnam was suffering under brutal colonial rule. Under socialism, life expectancy, literacy, food security, and medical access rose dramatically and greatly improved the lives of the people living in these places.
So yes, they are success stories, they objectively solved many of the problems they were trying to solve and improved people's lives across a wide number of metrics.
lol. Got live in China. Tell me how that works out for ya. So stupid.
The Western world got a headstart through centuries of colonialism and slavery, while China, Cuba, and Vietnam were all victims of that exploitation. Of course somewhere like Vietnam, that was subject to extreme exploitation and then bombed to smithereens, with Agent Orange dropped everywhere, is going to have some challenges developing, especially when they then face economic sanctions from powerful nations afterwards. Yet, as I said, all of those nations performed remarkably well despite that serious adversity. When the communists first came to power in China, life expectancy was about 35, while it was nearly double that in the US, now, their life expectancy has even exceeded ours.
Western nations remain wealthier due to continued exploitation of the third world, and I'm afraid I don't have the means to immigrate. I am grateful for your highly intelligent and informed response to my points, though.
Go live there.
"Oh, you don't like America? Well why don't you go live in [country America bombed]"
Socialism ends up causing all the problems you think it's gonna solve. Name one time in history that it was successful.
What on Earth are you talking about? This is utterly vibes based.
Socialism factually does work this way.
I completely agree with you on ACAB in capitalist countries, for the same reasons you mentioned, but cops in "actually existing socialist" countries like Russian and China are no better. They still use authoritarian violence to oppress anyone who steps out of line with the will of the State. There are many, many historic and more contemporary examples of socialist countries using the [secret] police and/or troops to quell dissent from unions, anarchists, and other leftist groups, because anyone who protests the actions of the State, no matter how legitimately, is considered to be an enemy of the State, whether that State is capitalist or not.
Russia the Russian Federation, or Russia the USSR? Very different deal there.
Either way, I feel like this is vibes based analysis. Committing crime is illegal, yes. Even Anarchists like in Revolutionary Catalonia punished criminals, even putting them in labor camps. Would ACAB apply to Anarchists? No, I would argue not, just like I would say ACAB wouldn't directly apply to a Socialist State.
The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is stark, a Socialist State is run by the Workers, rather than a Capitalist State run by the bourgeoisie. An analysis of Capitalism, it's accumulation-based nature, and how this impacts the state, is necessary analysis.
What do you think of Chekism?
In theory. Never works in practice.
Socialism works in theory and practice, Capitalism does not.
Capitalism works if the systems goal is to accumulate wealth to monopolies and the capitalists.
It does not, because it contains within itself the necessity of its decline due to factors like the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall.
We can always colonize other planets, if they exist. /s
China, Cuba, Vietnam…
Those are your success stories? Fucking laughable how stupid you are.
Pertaining to this meme and subject, yes.
Some context:
For one, the US is a terrible example for incarceration rates in any case. If you look at Europe, the incarceration rate on average is very comparable and in many Western European countries like Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, etc. it’s closer to half that, sometimes even less than half.
And also, China has a comparatively huge number of political prisoners and some places in China (particularly where a lot of Uyghurs happen to live) have incarceration rates of more than 3700 per 100000.. That’s a lot higher than the US and more than double than even the US‘s incarceration happiest state Louisiana with ~1400/100000.
And even ignoring that, I wouldn’t use China as a great example for a socialist state either, for the reasons that they have a totalitarian government that doesn’t like it very much if you don’t like them and that they very much do take part in capitalism, being the worlds cheap production plant.
The Uyghur situation is immaterial to the original comment of whether socialism works.
China considers the country socialist.
If the uyghur situation is immaterial then so is incarceration rate in general. Especially since there are a bunch of capitalist countries with a significantly lower incarceration rate than China.
And if they say they’re socialist it must of course be true. Authoritarian regimes have never misrepresented themselves ever. /s
Weird way to defend capitalism and the prison industrial complex.
The Prison Index: Taking the Pulse of the Crime Control Industry
I‘m not defending capitalism, I’m just saying that China shouldn‘t be the system we praise as a good example.
The same way, I’m not defending the PIC or the US‘s incarceration rates. I’m just saying, if you want a positive example for how prisons should be run, don’t look at a state that currently runs concentration camps. Look at countries with actually low incarceration rates like the Scandinavian countries, Germany, Switzerland or the Netherlands, that place their focus on reintegration not punishment, don’t have political prisoners, treat their inmates like human beings and also generally don’t have privately run prisons that "need" to be profitable.
What does that have to do with there discussion at hand?
All of those examples were successful in comparison to what came before. The ROC had a life expectancy in the 30's, and made no effort to address the basic needs of the vast majority of Chinese people. Cuba had a corrupt, authoritarian gangster state under Batista. Vietnam was suffering under brutal colonial rule. Under socialism, life expectancy, literacy, food security, and medical access rose dramatically and greatly improved the lives of the people living in these places.
So yes, they are success stories, they objectively solved many of the problems they were trying to solve and improved people's lives across a wide number of metrics.
lol. Got live in China. Tell me how that works out for ya. So stupid.
The Western world got a headstart through centuries of colonialism and slavery, while China, Cuba, and Vietnam were all victims of that exploitation. Of course somewhere like Vietnam, that was subject to extreme exploitation and then bombed to smithereens, with Agent Orange dropped everywhere, is going to have some challenges developing, especially when they then face economic sanctions from powerful nations afterwards. Yet, as I said, all of those nations performed remarkably well despite that serious adversity. When the communists first came to power in China, life expectancy was about 35, while it was nearly double that in the US, now, their life expectancy has even exceeded ours.
Western nations remain wealthier due to continued exploitation of the third world, and I'm afraid I don't have the means to immigrate. I am grateful for your highly intelligent and informed response to my points, though.
Go live there.
"Oh, you don't like America? Well why don't you go live in [country America bombed]"