The 1930s famine in the USSR was certainly a tragedy, but after collectivization of agriculture, the food supply in the USSR was stabilized, and famine eliminated (outside World War II) in a region where famine was common pre-collectivization.
Cowbee
joined 2 years ago
Yes, generally. Socialist countries like the PRC, where the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, rely more heavily on economic planning. However, even capitalist economies, where the large firms and key industries are privately owned, frequently the state is heavily involved in planning. This is especially true in post-WWII US, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, or even Bismark's Germany. This is sometimes called "state capitalism."
The USSR was more publicly owned and planned than the large majority of economies in history, though, so it's a useful case study.
If it's something completely different, like the electoral results you've already shown, deleted, then shown again repeatedly, then no, I won't agree. I do agree that it's a comicated subject, especially because a small number of people have benefited massively due to the reintroduction of capitalism, and these people have control of the state and the media. However, even if you were able to prove that about the Czech Republic, there's still all of the other states, plus the fact that the PRC is currently at over 90% approval rates.
No, again, the original comment:
The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back.
Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system.
No, again, the original comment:
The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back.
Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system.
The majority of people who lived in the USSR think it was a better system than today. The vast majority of the PRC is happy with their system. Personal anecdotes does not trump actual facts and statistics.
No, again, the original comment:
The majority of people that lived in the Soviet Union want it back.
Additionally, over 90% of Chinese citizens support their system.
I don't know how many times you need to read these stats, but socislism is popular among those who live in it.
The French Revolution was in 1789, after which France became capitalist, and the Paris Commune was in 1871. The Manifesto of the Communist Party came out in 1848, predating the Paris Commune. The words "communism" and "communist" are old, older than Marx and the French communards, but Marxism is not based on feudalism in any way. It's based on historical materialism, and as I've shown, is a post-socialist, post-capitalist system. The Paris Commune was short-lived, and did not manage to reach communism, they did not collectivize all property, nor could they have in such a short amount of time.
Marx did not invent the term "communism," nor did the French communards. Capitalism was widespread in western Europe prior to Marx being born and well before the Paris Commune. The manifesto of the communist party, written by Marx and Engels, both predates the Paris Commune, and is something made well after Marx's theoretical framework was created and written about for decades.
You're deeply unserious.
Us communists and socialists, anarchists, etc. don't normally call ourselves "progressives," progressive is usually something social democrats call themselves.
Capital, Volume 1 was first published in 1867, when capitalism was dominant in western Europe and it was both dramatically improving production while pushing down the quality of life of the proletariat. Capital is a critique of "Political Economy," the common bourgeois justification for capitalism. Marx's chief observation about capitalism that enables socialism is capitalism's centralizing tendencies, which increases the ratio of proletarian to bourgeois, while also training the proletariat on how to run and administer a complex and centralized economy.
The old, tribal formations were not socialist, they had no socialized production. It was cooperative, but extremely small-scale. Feudalism did not pave the way for socialism, either, but instead gave birth to capitalism. Capitalism's centralization and introduction of large, industrial production does give way to a large, single class that can collectively run and plan production, ie socialism. From Manifesto of the Communist Party:
The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour. Wage-labour rests exclusively on competition between the labourers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the labourers, due to competition, by the revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of Modern Industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
Communism has not stopped blooming. Or, rather, it hasn't started, either. Communism is a future system of fully collectivized, classless production. Socialism is still thriving, of course, it's the form of economy of the PRC, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.
Tell me, what should I read of Marx that goes against the theory of historical materialism and scientific socialism?
We shall, of course, not take the trouble to enlighten our wise philosophers by explaining to them that the “liberation” of man is not advanced a single step by reducing philosophy, theology, substance and all the trash to “self-consciousness” and by liberating man from the domination of these phrases, which have never held him in thrall. Nor will we explain to them that it is only possible to achieve real liberation in the real world and by employing real means, that slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture, and that, in general, people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity. “Liberation” is an historical and not a mental act, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse...
- Karl Marx, The German Ideology
One more, for good measure, from Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith:
Question 13: Then you do not believe that community of property has been possible at any time?
Answer: No. Communism has only arisen since machinery and other inventions made it possible to hold out the prospect of an all-sided development, a happy existence, for all members of society. Communism is the theory of a liberation which was not possible for the slaves, the serfs, or the handicraftsmen, but only for the proletarians and hence it belongs of necessity to the 19th century and was not possible in any earlier period.
Capitalism certainly lowered life expectancy initially, Marx makes this abundantly clear in Capital - Volume 1. However, with industrialization came advancements in socialized production (not socialist, socialized, ie cooperative work on an expanded and industrial scale in capitalism), which allowed for an acceleration of the sciences. Feudalism was holding science back, which in turn held medical science back. Same with farming, industrial farming increased outputs dramatically.
The Soviet Union and PRC absolutely made more dramatic improvements on a far-shorter time scale thanks to socialism, and indeed they did not rely on a developed period of capitalism (though they still depended on market forces), but the proletarian ideology of Marxism could not have come to existence without the prevalence of capitalism somewhere, this case being western Europe, allowing Marx to make critical advancements and Lenin to analyze the impacts on imperialism to successfully lead a revolution.
Feudalism was more obviously exploitative, and to a lesser extent than capitalism's theft of surplus value, but the sheer productive capacity of market forces ultimately provided the base for class struggle and development of proletarian ideology.
Several things are important to acknowlegde here, thanks for providing a new study.
First, there is a stark gender divide:
That's not a very good indication for the poll. It seems the Czech Republic is now far more socially regressive, and far harsher towards those without privledge.
Second, there is further proof that the privledged in society have benefited more, while the underprivledged have been held back:
The poll is interesting, in that it reveals that the Czech Republic is now more striated. Not only has time passed, allowing the economy to grow a decent bit and improve from the utter disaster that was the 90s period, but those privledged in society have benefited more while those underprivledged have been thrown under the bus.
Ultimately, this new information reframes our analysis, and if anything leads to pro-communist conclusions. Further still, the arguments for socialism vs capitalism still hold, even if the Czech Republic is currently in a more reactionary phase of its existence.