Literally yes. Housing, employment, education, healthcare and pensions are guaranteed in Cuba, and were guaranteed in the USSR, both in theory and in practice. What are you exactly talking about?
Capitalism literally encourages human greed to accumulate wealth and destroy the societal system. Even if you tax and regulate them that’s still what’s encouraged, as its literally the entire point of the system
And regarding “only some species share resources…” Yes. Us. That’s literally what society is. How do you think humans grew to become the most successful species on earth? If you win I do not lose. It’s not a zero-sum game. Cooperation is literally a win-win. Do you think technology and science would thrive and prosper in a cutthroat society where people kill and steal from each other over any tiny advantage they can get?
I mean, do you know what socialism is? Do you know what capitalism is? It’s not really extreme in the objective sense, what is extreme is that someone can own a thing that they don’t even use, and hire other people to use for them, and then them profit just because they own it. Or own land and make others pay to use or live on that land, just because they own it. I mean, I find that to be absurd in the grand scheme of things, but that is what capitalism is.
Capitalism just feels like a very anti-social economic system
I agree with what you say except the last part about the entire concept of life being capitalist. It is not. All life in the natural world is in equilibrium. There is give and take but all work in tandem. Parasites are the capitalists, taking until there is nothing left to give and ultimately killing their host.
Yup. I once saw a grey-jay standing atop a relatively humongous pile of moose guts trying to protect it from thieves. The natural world is actually a good metaphor for the plausibility of ideal capitalism but breaks down for RL capitalism because human nature and ingenuity destroys the system’s ability to reach equilibrium.
The entire concept of life itself is very capitalist — You have to exploit all resources available to you so you can survive and thrive. Only some species share resources — that too if they are in abundance for them.
This is an incredibly inaccurate way to describe nature and you feed into narratives that capitalism is “natural” that stop us from thinking critically both about nature and humanity when you frame things in this way.
Apart from that every multicellular lifeform is a collective. True, those multicellular organisms prey on each other and fight to keep their species thriving. They don’t knowingly harm their own fucking species like capitalism does.
What you have accomplished is to introduce a completely arbitrary and reductive continuum and stated both ends are bad… so what?
I don’t care either way what you think about capitalism, I am telling you to stop comparing capitalism to nature because it exposes that you clearly don’t know anything about nature.
I gave you a plethora of actual evidence of human rights in an actually existing socialist country, and you went with the “gommunism impossible because hooman greed”.
But please elaborate: why is the nationalization and collectivization of means of production so vulnerable to greed? A system in which power is distributed among all workers is actually less prone to greed issues than one in which a single human is in control of the whole company. The whole “human greed” argument is a hollow sophism without any actual analysis of everything.
How is it more sustainable to maintain an elite of wealthy company owners with interests opposed to those of the workers than to maintain a worker controlled state? You are witnessing with your own eyes the disintegration of the western capitalist system, the fascists entering power in USA, Italy, Finland, and probably soon Germany and France and Spain will follow, likely UK too. All the “center-left checks and balances” with strong union membership in the 1960s-1980s disappeared overnight when the threat of global communism disappeared in the 1990s and capitalism didn’t need to appear to be better anymore.
Source: émigré gusanos living in Madrid, Spain. Life expectancy is higher in Cuba than in the USA, and that’s despite the island country suffering the most comprehensive and long lasting economic blockade in human history. The blockade itself, according to the Office of the Historian of the USA, was put in place, and I quote: “to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government”. Seeing you’re so concerned with poverty caused by economic blockades, you may be interested to know that according to recent medical research US and EU sanctions murder above half a million humans per year since 1971.
USSR […] its internal economy was so shit…
…so shit that it took backwards feudal Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, etc. where 85% of the population were destitute peasants with a life expectancy of 27 years in 1929, and by 1970 turned into the second world power, rose life expectancy to close to 70, and did all this without exploiting the global south.
Totally terrible economy, much worse than anything before or after, right?
Also they supported the Nazis during Poland’s invasion
Wrong, wrong and more wrong. I’ve answered to that in a separate comment because of how wrong that is, feel free to read it and give me a well-informed opinión afterwards on my comment. “Le evil Soviets invaded poor wittle Poland” is pure historic revisionism that you’re regurgitating from some other Lemmy comment you’ve seen.
As for the rest of your comment I won’t bother because it’s just more “hooman greed” nonsense.
Few successes like the lack of exploitation of the Global South? You’re just a racist who doesn’t give a shit about the billions suffering under capitalism.
What political freedom do we have in capitalism? I’m a European, and for the past 20 years we’ve been able to choose between either austerity policy (socialdemocrats) and harsh austerity policy (conservative/neoliberals). This applies to every country in the EU without exception, to the point that Greece tried something different with Syriza during the 2010s and elected a party more akin to your ideas and their political power got essentially couped by the EU’s Troika and central bank when they threatened that if Greece were to revise its sovereign debt, the central bank would stop working for Greece. Now in France a majority of people voted for something akin to your ideals with La France Insumise and Macron is preventing them from reaching government, furthering the advance of fascism. I’m Spanish and we had a left party called Podemos in the 2010s which got demolished in the elections after accusations of funding by Venezuela and Iran. Turns out the ministry of interior had fabricated false evidence and given it to the media to circulate it. In the USA, they can choose between orange fascist supporting genocide in Gaza, or female state prosecutor supporting genocide in Gaza. What an array of Democratic options we have in capitalism, mate. Meanwhile, China, with its single party government, enjoys the highest rates of satisfaction with the central government in the world.
You just spew and repeat bullshit anticommunist propaganda. I showed you the insane and continuous GDP growth of the USSR and you keep falsely talking of stagnation (I’m Spanish and under capitalism the living standards of 2025 are worse than those of 2005, in Germany, quality of life just dropped to the lowest level in 40 years). You aren’t even making coherent arguments because I can literally show you numeric evidence that you’re wrong, but your cognitive dissonance is too strong to listen and you keep repeating the same shit despite being literally proven wrong two comments above.
As for Molotov-Ribbentrop and the invasion of “Poland”: I’m gonna please ask you to actually read my comment and to be open to the historical evidence I bring (using Wikipedia as a source, hopefully not suspect of being tankie-biased), because I believe there is a great mistake in the way contemporary western nations interpret history of WW2 and the interwar period. Thank you for actually making the effort, I know it’s a long comment, but please engage with the points I’m making:
The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.” Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn’t want to. By the logic of “invading Poland” being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.
As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won’t find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.
The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:
“Polish” territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:
The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?
Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.
All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
If it was an annexation in the same quality as what the Nazis did, then why did Poland not resist the invasion (which they did against Nazis) and why did the Allies not declare war against the USSR?
followed by mass arrests and deportations
There were arrests and deportations, true. And not just that, there were also summary executions of some thousands of Polish members of the army, of the police forces, of the previous government and many landlords and capitalists. If you ask a Pole they’ll invariably bring up Katyn massacre (which is generally attributed to the Soviets but AFAIK there’s room for doubting that, given some key pieces of evidence such as examination of munitions used in the executions revealing that they were German munitions). The thing is: the Soviets weren’t “annexing land” for the sake of annexion, they were propagating socialism, and to have socialism, you need to make sure you won’t suffer a capitalist counterrevolution organized by the formerly powerful ones who were benefiting from the exploitation of the workers and peasants.
Overall, I do believe that the expansion of the Soviet socialist model was a good thing in and out of itself, and therefore I generally defend the actions taken to expand this model to countries that resisted because I believe that the ones resisting this weren’t primarily the workers or peasants, but the ruling classes and the wealthy.
You claim communism is impossible to implement yet you have no issue in attempting to implement a democracy that capitalism won’t be able to pervert, despite one never having existed before and it being impossible for one to exist.
It sounds less like genuine rationality and more like rationalising a status quo bias. Even worse when people are claiming capitalism to be the natural order of life, despite existing for less than 0.0000001% of it and humans being egalitarian for far longer than they were capitalist.
Peak homoeconomus experiencing “capitalist realism.” They even colonised your dreams.
No, you’re just rationalising sociopathy with thoroughly disproved social-Darwinism. Contrary to what people think, it was our sharing of resources that set us appart from our competitors, not competition within our species. That’s basic human evolutionary history.
People had to be beaten, whipped, staved, dispossessed of their land and forced leave their egalitarian lives to endure capitalism, making it the opposite of human nature. You just don’t know the history of capitalism.
Again, can you name one single country that hasn’t had its democracy utterly perverted by capitalism? We both know you can’t and that’s why you refuse to answer. Can you even name one check that hasn’t been perverted? As you can’t, why do you think any could magically work now?
Believing it to be human instinct is just telling on yourself for you lack of empathy, believing everyone else has as little as you do.
We were egalitarian for 10s of thousands of years. That’s real human nature whether you like it or not. Just because we happen to be ruled over by the most greedy and sociopathic people in society, it doesn’t make it our nature.
You can’t name a time capitalism hasn’t perverted democracy and failed the 99% but think failing that way only applies to communism. Like I said, peak homo economicus experiencing capitalist realism. You fell for the first lie you were told and refuse to hold it to account.
Literally yes. Housing, employment, education, healthcare and pensions are guaranteed in Cuba, and were guaranteed in the USSR, both in theory and in practice. What are you exactly talking about?
deleted by creator
Capitalism literally encourages human greed to accumulate wealth and destroy the societal system. Even if you tax and regulate them that’s still what’s encouraged, as its literally the entire point of the system
And regarding “only some species share resources…” Yes. Us. That’s literally what society is. How do you think humans grew to become the most successful species on earth? If you win I do not lose. It’s not a zero-sum game. Cooperation is literally a win-win. Do you think technology and science would thrive and prosper in a cutthroat society where people kill and steal from each other over any tiny advantage they can get?
deleted by creator
I mean, do you know what socialism is? Do you know what capitalism is? It’s not really extreme in the objective sense, what is extreme is that someone can own a thing that they don’t even use, and hire other people to use for them, and then them profit just because they own it. Or own land and make others pay to use or live on that land, just because they own it. I mean, I find that to be absurd in the grand scheme of things, but that is what capitalism is.
Capitalism just feels like a very anti-social economic system
I mean Russia did put people in space
And china
deleted by creator
So how about the death toll of countries under the strain of capitalism?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I agree with what you say except the last part about the entire concept of life being capitalist. It is not. All life in the natural world is in equilibrium. There is give and take but all work in tandem. Parasites are the capitalists, taking until there is nothing left to give and ultimately killing their host.
deleted by creator
Yup. I once saw a grey-jay standing atop a relatively humongous pile of moose guts trying to protect it from thieves. The natural world is actually a good metaphor for the plausibility of ideal capitalism but breaks down for RL capitalism because human nature and ingenuity destroys the system’s ability to reach equilibrium.
This is an incredibly inaccurate way to describe nature and you feed into narratives that capitalism is “natural” that stop us from thinking critically both about nature and humanity when you frame things in this way.
Apart from that every multicellular lifeform is a collective. True, those multicellular organisms prey on each other and fight to keep their species thriving. They don’t knowingly harm their own fucking species like capitalism does.
deleted by creator
What you have accomplished is to introduce a completely arbitrary and reductive continuum and stated both ends are bad… so what?
I don’t care either way what you think about capitalism, I am telling you to stop comparing capitalism to nature because it exposes that you clearly don’t know anything about nature.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I gave you a plethora of actual evidence of human rights in an actually existing socialist country, and you went with the “gommunism impossible because hooman greed”.
But please elaborate: why is the nationalization and collectivization of means of production so vulnerable to greed? A system in which power is distributed among all workers is actually less prone to greed issues than one in which a single human is in control of the whole company. The whole “human greed” argument is a hollow sophism without any actual analysis of everything.
How is it more sustainable to maintain an elite of wealthy company owners with interests opposed to those of the workers than to maintain a worker controlled state? You are witnessing with your own eyes the disintegration of the western capitalist system, the fascists entering power in USA, Italy, Finland, and probably soon Germany and France and Spain will follow, likely UK too. All the “center-left checks and balances” with strong union membership in the 1960s-1980s disappeared overnight when the threat of global communism disappeared in the 1990s and capitalism didn’t need to appear to be better anymore.
deleted by creator
Source: émigré gusanos living in Madrid, Spain. Life expectancy is higher in Cuba than in the USA, and that’s despite the island country suffering the most comprehensive and long lasting economic blockade in human history. The blockade itself, according to the Office of the Historian of the USA, was put in place, and I quote: “to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government”. Seeing you’re so concerned with poverty caused by economic blockades, you may be interested to know that according to recent medical research US and EU sanctions murder above half a million humans per year since 1971.
…so shit that it took backwards feudal Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Belarus, etc. where 85% of the population were destitute peasants with a life expectancy of 27 years in 1929, and by 1970 turned into the second world power, rose life expectancy to close to 70, and did all this without exploiting the global south.
Totally terrible economy, much worse than anything before or after, right?
Wrong, wrong and more wrong. I’ve answered to that in a separate comment because of how wrong that is, feel free to read it and give me a well-informed opinión afterwards on my comment. “Le evil Soviets invaded poor wittle Poland” is pure historic revisionism that you’re regurgitating from some other Lemmy comment you’ve seen.
As for the rest of your comment I won’t bother because it’s just more “hooman greed” nonsense.
deleted by creator
Few successes like the lack of exploitation of the Global South? You’re just a racist who doesn’t give a shit about the billions suffering under capitalism.
What political freedom do we have in capitalism? I’m a European, and for the past 20 years we’ve been able to choose between either austerity policy (socialdemocrats) and harsh austerity policy (conservative/neoliberals). This applies to every country in the EU without exception, to the point that Greece tried something different with Syriza during the 2010s and elected a party more akin to your ideas and their political power got essentially couped by the EU’s Troika and central bank when they threatened that if Greece were to revise its sovereign debt, the central bank would stop working for Greece. Now in France a majority of people voted for something akin to your ideals with La France Insumise and Macron is preventing them from reaching government, furthering the advance of fascism. I’m Spanish and we had a left party called Podemos in the 2010s which got demolished in the elections after accusations of funding by Venezuela and Iran. Turns out the ministry of interior had fabricated false evidence and given it to the media to circulate it. In the USA, they can choose between orange fascist supporting genocide in Gaza, or female state prosecutor supporting genocide in Gaza. What an array of Democratic options we have in capitalism, mate. Meanwhile, China, with its single party government, enjoys the highest rates of satisfaction with the central government in the world.
You just spew and repeat bullshit anticommunist propaganda. I showed you the insane and continuous GDP growth of the USSR and you keep falsely talking of stagnation (I’m Spanish and under capitalism the living standards of 2025 are worse than those of 2005, in Germany, quality of life just dropped to the lowest level in 40 years). You aren’t even making coherent arguments because I can literally show you numeric evidence that you’re wrong, but your cognitive dissonance is too strong to listen and you keep repeating the same shit despite being literally proven wrong two comments above.
As for Molotov-Ribbentrop and the invasion of “Poland”: I’m gonna please ask you to actually read my comment and to be open to the historical evidence I bring (using Wikipedia as a source, hopefully not suspect of being tankie-biased), because I believe there is a great mistake in the way contemporary western nations interpret history of WW2 and the interwar period. Thank you for actually making the effort, I know it’s a long comment, but please engage with the points I’m making:
The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: “The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia’s assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused.” Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn’t want to. By the logic of “invading Poland” being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.
As a Spaniard leftist it’s so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren’t dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn’t agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won’t find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.
The invasion of “Poland” is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn’t invade what we think of when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:
“Polish” territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:
The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you’d consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?
Additionally, the Soviets didn’t invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.
All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn’t allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that’s a given), and offered to send a million troops to France’s border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren’t allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:
“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)
“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.
"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact’s signing)
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this
deleted by creator
If it was an annexation in the same quality as what the Nazis did, then why did Poland not resist the invasion (which they did against Nazis) and why did the Allies not declare war against the USSR?
There were arrests and deportations, true. And not just that, there were also summary executions of some thousands of Polish members of the army, of the police forces, of the previous government and many landlords and capitalists. If you ask a Pole they’ll invariably bring up Katyn massacre (which is generally attributed to the Soviets but AFAIK there’s room for doubting that, given some key pieces of evidence such as examination of munitions used in the executions revealing that they were German munitions). The thing is: the Soviets weren’t “annexing land” for the sake of annexion, they were propagating socialism, and to have socialism, you need to make sure you won’t suffer a capitalist counterrevolution organized by the formerly powerful ones who were benefiting from the exploitation of the workers and peasants.
Overall, I do believe that the expansion of the Soviet socialist model was a good thing in and out of itself, and therefore I generally defend the actions taken to expand this model to countries that resisted because I believe that the ones resisting this weren’t primarily the workers or peasants, but the ruling classes and the wealthy.
First level headed comment i think ive ever read on lemmy. People need to get out of black and white thinking. It has to be a blend.
We need libraries and fire stations. We also need some competition and industry so we can live comfortably and buy shit; thats just how it is.
We dont need billionaires.
deleted by creator
Civilisation would be impossible to implement if we didn’t criminalise destructive behaviour like murder.
Make greed (hording wealth) illegal.
You claim communism is impossible to implement yet you have no issue in attempting to implement a democracy that capitalism won’t be able to pervert, despite one never having existed before and it being impossible for one to exist.
It sounds less like genuine rationality and more like rationalising a status quo bias. Even worse when people are claiming capitalism to be the natural order of life, despite existing for less than 0.0000001% of it and humans being egalitarian for far longer than they were capitalist.
Peak homoeconomus experiencing “capitalist realism.” They even colonised your dreams.
deleted by creator
No, you’re just rationalising sociopathy with thoroughly disproved social-Darwinism. Contrary to what people think, it was our sharing of resources that set us appart from our competitors, not competition within our species. That’s basic human evolutionary history.
People had to be beaten, whipped, staved, dispossessed of their land and forced leave their egalitarian lives to endure capitalism, making it the opposite of human nature. You just don’t know the history of capitalism.
Again, can you name one single country that hasn’t had its democracy utterly perverted by capitalism? We both know you can’t and that’s why you refuse to answer. Can you even name one check that hasn’t been perverted? As you can’t, why do you think any could magically work now?
Believing it to be human instinct is just telling on yourself for you lack of empathy, believing everyone else has as little as you do.
We were egalitarian for 10s of thousands of years. That’s real human nature whether you like it or not. Just because we happen to be ruled over by the most greedy and sociopathic people in society, it doesn’t make it our nature.
You can’t name a time capitalism hasn’t perverted democracy and failed the 99% but think failing that way only applies to communism. Like I said, peak homo economicus experiencing capitalist realism. You fell for the first lie you were told and refuse to hold it to account.
deleted by creator
Well, I didn’t think you were but, if you say so. Calling yourself a clown too was a bit much though.
Just the one piece popcorn is it? 🤣
Sorry for the late reply. I was actually living a life. No time for revolutions. Sadly, people are too stupid to see their gilded cages.
Wait, if we can have capitalism with regulations why can’t we just have communism with regulations instead?