You're forgetting that the USSR was a rising country that already provided better safety nets, the US and western Europe copied them. When capitalism entered crisis, the bourgeoisie opted to bribe the working class with welfare to lower the chance of revolution, and make up for the loss with imperialism. With the dissolution of the USSR and diminished rates of profit overall, welfare became more expensive and thus the capitalists were free to roll those bribes back.
Cowbee
joined 2 years ago
Lemmy.ml has tons of liberals from other instances, which is a blessing and a curse.
Not quite. Capitalists agreed to make temporary concessions, with the dissolution of the USSR there was no longer a rival system that offered good safety nets with fewer resources and under constant siege. Then, the capitalists removed them over time. See here:
For capitalists, welfare comes from taxation, which as paid from the social fund this includes coming from worker's wages. Welfare is merely like electricity for a capitalist, both necessary in that they maintain the conditions for commodity production, and as such both are minimized to the degree they can be, just like worker's wages.
To be fair, some do end up listening over time. I've seen people listen, change their mind, and start reading theory and dropping the anti-communism. That doesn't change that some social fascists and radlibs will endlessly complain about Marxists like it's the 60s in the US Empire, but in my experience most of us Marxist-Leninists were at some point liberals, especially in the global north.
Yep! I'm working my way through volume 2 of Capital right now, getting into turnover time, and Marx is about to start discussing Smith and the physiocrats.
Definitely true! The LTV of course predates Marx, and could easily be used as justification for socialism. I was more referring to the problems with Smith's and Ricardo's work that Marx resolved, giving an even better justification that only points towards socialism.
No, they don't. You have no clue what you're talking about, nor how government spending works.
All states are authoritarian, what matters is which class is in control, the proletariat or bourgeoisie. "Authoritarian" isn't something unique to the PRC, it applies to every state, though the nature of that authority depends on the class structure.
No, the Falun Gong is an anticommunist cult that regularly makes up shit. You are regurgitating USian propaganda, that's why you're malding.
Public ownership is collectivized, private is individual or a group of investors. Private ownership requires profits at a systemic level (if not individually), while public doesn't need to. Does that make sense? With collectivized ownership we can abolish the profit motive, and plan the economy more effectively.
No, Putin does not own the economy, just like Trump does not own the US. This is silly. Additionally, Russia is capitalist, and the PRC is socialist.
No, the CPC does not take organs from people off the streets. This is incredibly racist propaganda, and I cannot believe you're repeating this.
I'm not "simping" for anything, I've provided sources for what I've said, while you live in fantasy land where heads of state are owners of economies like we live in feudalism. This is nonsense. Plus, not sure why you're bringing in the DPRK and RF unprompted, we were discussing the PRC.
This meme is pretty clearly referring to capitalist welfare states, and not welfare in general. Welfare under socialism is different from under capitalism in purpose and structure.