this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2024
35 points (70.1% liked)
Progressive Politics
1076 readers
131 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
tbf, some people seem to think that the only reason communism failed was because the evil imperial west successfully destroyed all the innocent and fully-functional communists. When someone refuses to acknowledge the Stalinist descent into totalitarian disaster or the CCP's decision to independently move towards some privatization in the name of efficiency, that's not a great sign of a clear-minded person. You know, I don't think N Korea would be a socialist paradise if only we lifted our sanctions.
It's complicated, ultimately.
Agree with some if your points but North Korea is not a socialist country. Their self proclamation doesn't make it one in ths same way that I can proclaim to the the smartest person in the world without it being true.
Having democracy (voting rights) is a prerequisite for a socialist society. Some forms of socialism has a proxy government, but that government is elected by the people. The most basic requirement for socialism is a country where its workers decide on its production. North Korea is a dictatorship and has a command economy. Saying North Korea is socialist is akin to saying England in the middle ages were socialist. Both countries were governed by dictators and everything was decided by the kings court. We call that Fuedlism, not Socialism, don't we?
Fair. I was using it as an example mainly because I have seen the argument before that N Korea only suffers due to the west. There is certainly much more to it, overall.
It's an incorrect example. For North Korea to be a Socialist paradise, it has to be Socialist first.
It's like me saying the US would've been a Socialist paradise were it not for Trump's presidency. It doesn't have a base to construct a hypothesis.
Yes, I agree. I'm not going to go into the history of communist movements turning into dictatorships every time I see someone try to pin N Korean living conditions exclusively on western action though.
I'm not trying to make an argument about the theoretical workability of a socialist society, I am trying to make an argument about the success rate of communist movements at accomplishing that, and how it is more than western action that makes it challenging.
That's a bad faith argument.
This way of binary thinking also has a Capitalsm equivalent. Some say Capitalsm ALWAYS end up in neo-liberal economies and with late stage Capitalsm with oligarchs and the death of the free market. For example oligarchs control most of the US economy and most economic policies are put forward with lobbying money. Is has become increasingly harder to start a small business in the US, hence US citizens' tendancy to romantacize the Europe. If you say that Socialist movements ALWAYS end up in dictatorships then Capitalist moves should ALWAYS end up in late stage Capitalsm and the death of the free market.
In reality no contry is purely Capitalist or Socialist anymore. Otherwise the US wouldn't put tariffs on Chinese cars to protect GM, Ford and now Tesla. A direct contradiction to free market policies. Meanwhile there isn't a huge tariff especially for US cars in China. China ended up leaning towards Capitalism than before. Scandinavian countries absorbed a lof of leftist policies into their modern day government. Most of Vienna's houses are government owned. Everyone has mixed policies because there are good in both Capitalist and Socialist principles. You just have to be implement whatever is good for the people and economy in a given climate.
I did not say that socialism always results in dictatorship, though I can see how a quick reading of my wording could be misconstrued that way. I said I am not going to go into the history of it happening (sometimes), in all the cases that I witness someone making a certain argument.
I just think you are inaccurately identifying my position and my arguments. But ultimately I do agree with you.
Oh ok. Sorry for sounding a bit harsh but it did seem to me the way you mentioned.