There are plenty of surviving socialist states, and Cuba and Venezuela and Vietnam for that matter still exist despite extensive US meddling so it’s weird to call them non-surviving.
Whether you want to call China socialist is a whole different kettle of worms, but I think it demonstrates rather handily that socialism’s second greatest burden beyond the necessity of fighting off capitalists is the authoritarianism of Marxists.
Sure, and they do plenty of capitalist hellscape shit in general and I’ll shitpost about that all day. They’ve also raised nearly a billion people out of poverty since 1978 and one of the original conceits of Marxism is that capitalism might be necessarily to build the industrial foundation for socialism to be viable in the first place so… We’ll see what happens as they come closer and closer to undeniably a society that could enact true socialism if it wanted to.
We do know their state has absolutely no qualms about disappearing billionaires as is. Or, you know, millions of Muslims.
This is a great perspective and it always helps me with gloom and doom. There are billions of people infinitely better off than twenty years ago in regards to access to food, electricity, and clean water.
You don’t need to wonder what will happen as China has already embraced fascism. Once wealthy individuals and their corporations gather enough power China will be no different than the rest of the world. I would love for them to prove me wrong.
Capitalism always results in the same outcome and China is no different. Such is life.
Marxism posits that socialism is best achieved through a command/centralized economy. There’s plenty of room for interpretation and of course being a Marxist doesn’t mean you have to agree with 150 year old socioeconomic theories on every point but generally that’s the form Marxist governments have assumed, probably because it is in the interest of the people running a government to take all the power they can.
If the government controls production from the ground up there’s just no other model to call it but authoritarian, everything within that society can only happen by their consent or by breaking the law.
There are plenty of surviving socialist states, and Cuba and Venezuela and Vietnam for that matter still exist despite extensive US meddling so it’s weird to call them non-surviving.
Whether you want to call China socialist is a whole different kettle of worms, but I think it demonstrates rather handily that socialism’s second greatest burden beyond the necessity of fighting off capitalists is the authoritarianism of Marxists.
China produced more billionaires than the US this year.
Sure, and they do plenty of capitalist hellscape shit in general and I’ll shitpost about that all day. They’ve also raised nearly a billion people out of poverty since 1978 and one of the original conceits of Marxism is that capitalism might be necessarily to build the industrial foundation for socialism to be viable in the first place so… We’ll see what happens as they come closer and closer to undeniably a society that could enact true socialism if it wanted to.
We do know their state has absolutely no qualms about disappearing billionaires as is. Or, you know, millions of Muslims.
This is a great perspective and it always helps me with gloom and doom. There are billions of people infinitely better off than twenty years ago in regards to access to food, electricity, and clean water.
You don’t need to wonder what will happen as China has already embraced fascism. Once wealthy individuals and their corporations gather enough power China will be no different than the rest of the world. I would love for them to prove me wrong.
Capitalism always results in the same outcome and China is no different. Such is life.
I agree, that’s why I called them non-working socialist states.
My point is we haven’t yet seen how well (or bad) could a socialist state work if left alone.
I’m a total lamen but what makes Marxism authoritarian?
Marxism posits that socialism is best achieved through a command/centralized economy. There’s plenty of room for interpretation and of course being a Marxist doesn’t mean you have to agree with 150 year old socioeconomic theories on every point but generally that’s the form Marxist governments have assumed, probably because it is in the interest of the people running a government to take all the power they can.
If the government controls production from the ground up there’s just no other model to call it but authoritarian, everything within that society can only happen by their consent or by breaking the law.