US News

Literally every fully communist society has been a shit hole throughout history.

You forgot to pull the source from your ass along with that claim. Jesus mate, if you're gonna make bold uninformed statements like that you can just go do it on Reddit where we'd get banned for correcting you. Tell me what a shithole Cuba is when you can't get treatment for diabetes in the USA, or can't pay for university in Europe because you're a foreigner. Or how the USSR was so terrible when they were recognised as such pioneers in film that the USA had to ban their films. Or China eradicating poverty and homelessness. What did those countries not have that your Norseboys have, considering the clear interference of capitalist nations in both of them?

Also what an strange obsession to treat the survival of people as somehow inferior to your entertainment. Are you really willing to trade away the survival of poor people, including all the migrants and asylum seekers not covered in norseland, as well as the wellbeing of the workers to produce things you like both there and abroad, just so you can watch yet another 300k budget Marvel movie? Even if you were correct that communist countries only focus on survival (you're not), how would that be worse than having tens of thousands of homeless people just because the renters don't find it profitable.

Read a book before spouting nonsense and calling countries "shit holes". Have you no consideration for your fellow human?

Literally every fully communist society has been a shit hole throughout history. It simply doesn’t equate to good living conditions. It’s why there have been so many revolutions in communist countries, it gives people nothing of value apart from literally not dying, and even then, not really.

It is not true that communist societies have been shit holes throughout history. Socialist states also have higher approval ratings by their own people, who say that their governments better serve their needs and desires.

One trap you're falling in to is comparing the internal conditions of a socialist country to the internal conditions of completely unrelated (often capitalist) countries. The reason this is a trap is because the correct analysis compares the timeline of the conditions within the country. Put another way: you need to compare how much a socialist framework improved the lives of the citizens of the country from how they were before. If you compare the lives of people in a country that has only had its people out of poverty for a decade, compared to one that has had most of its people out of poverty for a century, you're going to come to faulty conclusions. If you compare citizens across countries at a fixed point in time, you're bound to discount (as you have) the massive improvements in quailty of life socialist projects have brought. Socialist projects have brought more people out of poverty, in a shorter amount of time, than any system before or since. Another aspect of this "trap" is that you're comparing modern living standards in capitalist countries to historic living standards in socialist countries. They didn't have iPhones in the USSR, but that doesn't mean they were worse off, it just means that the iPhone wasn't around then.

Another trap you're falling in to is comparing those at the top in capitalist countries, with the everyday person in a socialist country. If you look at the lives of the top 1% in a capitalist country, and compare that to a generic life in a socialist country, you'd (falsely) conclude that the capitalist country offers a better life. What you're failing to account for is the massive inequality, and the lives of the people at the bottom of the capitalist hierarchy. You can't comend a system that lets the bottom 95% do so poorly that they look bad even by "socialist" standards, just because the top 5% is doing better than the "socialist" standards. I'd rather a society in which 100% of people are provided for and have their needs met, but can't own private planes, several yachts, a dozen houses, and a handful of lawmakers, than one in which you can have those luxuries but only if you're one of a select few, at the expense of the rest of the people.

You're also just fabricating the notion that there was "nothing to do" or that there was "nothing of value apart from not dying". Free time was abundant; economic scarcity didn't prevent people from seeking out entertainment; there was a stronger social fabric because there was not a strictly upheld hierarchy; there were opportunities to pursue arts and education (and not just to make your employer able to extract more value from you).

One significant thing you're ignoring, and this I really do think is quite significant, is the trajectory of a capitalist and a socialist system. In a socialist system, you're starting from a low point and successively making improvements to people's lives; there may be temporary stagnation but there shouldn't be regression and, if that did happen, it would not be permanent. On the other hand, in a capitalist system, people's lives are not improving: the trajectory of a capitalist system is increased inequality, increased poverty, increased death due to poor care and starvation, etc. Extrapolating out each system to the future shows that only one is stable and caters to the needs and desires of its people, and the other is doomed to implode on itself.

There is no such thing as a mix, as Capitalism and Communism are fundimentaly incompatable with each other, Scandinavia is Capitalist, or to put it in more blunt terms "Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism"-J. Stalin. You can even see the social safety net sliding now that the Communist block has faided and so the capitalists have less to fear about their workers seeing how good they can have it.