yogthos

That's correct communism is the end goal. Also, not sure what you could possibly mean that communism didn't work well. Everywhere it's been tried, it has lifted millions out of poverty and provided them with housing, education, food, and healthcare. Countries run by communist parties today are demonstrably doing a far better job providing for the working majority than their capitalist counterparts. The research on the subject is extensive and the results are beyond question.

Professor of Economic History, Robert C. Allen, concludes in his study without the 1917 revolution is directly responsible for rapid growth that made the achievements listed above possible: https://web.archive.org/web/20200119044114/https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.507.8966&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Study demonstrating the steady increase in quality of life during the Soviet period (including under Stalin). Includes the fact that Soviet life expectancy grew faster than any other nation recorded at the time: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2672986?seq=1

A large study using world bank data analyzing the quality of life in Capitalist vs Socialist countries and finds overwhelmingly at similar levels of development with socialism bringing better quality of life: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646771/pdf/amjph00269-0055.pdf

This study compared capitalist and socialist countries in measures of the physical quality of life (PQL), taking into account the level of economic development. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2430906/

This study shows that unprecedented mortality crisis struck Eastern Europe during the 1990s, causing around 7 million excess deaths. The first quantitative analysis of the association between deindustrialization and mortality in Eastern Europe. https://academic.oup.com/cje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cje/beac072/7081084?guestAccessKey=01c8dd9f-af1c-48b3-b271-eb5d3a45017c&login=false

Romania, the inustrialization of an agrarian economy under socialist planning https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/888851468333915517/pdf/multi0page.pdf

An exploration of China's mortality decline under Mao: A provincial analysis, 1950-80 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25495509/

Last I checked, the genocide of the native population of America was fuelled by the British capitalism. Notably, capitalism was also the primary driver of African slave trade.

The right direction would obviously be socialism with public ownership of the means of production and an economy being directed towards meeting the needs of working majority as opposed to a handful of elites. Should be pretty obvious, yet here you are.

Right, and that's why I find it increasingly difficult to believe that she really believes what she says.

Nope, that's exactly what I implied when I point out that capitalism is the wrong direction of human development.

Not sure what point you're even trying to make here. Life expectancy has been improving due to science and technology improving.

You could starve to death because your crop had been taken by the lords or die hanged to a tree because you complained

That's literally how things work today where western corps exploit the workers in the global south. That's what your lifestyle in the west is built on. Go read up on the coups, death squads, and other atrocities the west regularly commits around the world to keep the system of exploitation going. Here's a good primer for you https://archive.org/details/KillingHope

I think it could be argued she had some initial idealism, but I'm pretty sure she knows exactly what he's doing at this point.

The rise in life expectancy has fuck all to do with capitalism given that life expectancy in both Cuba and China is higher than the US right now. Meanwhile, slavery continues to be the backbone of western economies.

ok there blueAnon

What an amazing counterpoint.

Bernie is basically a modern day version of Bernstein. Though a century apart, both peddle reformism as a political pacifier, diverting energy from the radical systemic change required to dismantle capitalism. Their approaches, while superficially progressive, function as ideological traps, diverting energy from serious movements necessary to upend capitalism.

Bernstein was a leading figure in Germany’s SPD, and he famously rejected Marxist revolutionary praxis in favor of evolutionary socialism. He argued capitalism could be gradually reformed into socialism through parliamentary means, dismissing the inevitability of class conflict. He neutralized the SPD’s revolutionary potential, channeling working-class demands into compromises like wage increases or limited welfare programs that left capitalist hierarchies intact. As Rosa Luxemburg warned in Reform or Revolution, Bernstein’s strategy reduced socialism to a “mild appendage” of liberalism, sapping the working class of its transformative agency.

Likewise, the political project that Bernie pursued mirrors Bernstein’s trajectory. While Sanders critiques inequality and corporate power, his platform centers on social democratic reforms, such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, that treat symptoms instead of root causes. By framing electoral victory as the primary objective, Sanders diverted a what could have been a millions strong grassroots movement into the Democratic Party, an institution structurally committed to maintaining capitalism. His campaigns absorbed activist energy into phone banking and voter outreach, rather than building durable, extra-parliamentary power such as workplace organizations, tenant unions, and so on.

When Sanders conceded to Hillary Clinton and later Joe Biden, his base dissolved into disillusionment or shifted focus to lesser-evilism. Without autonomous structures to sustain pressure, the movement’s momentum evaporated similarly to how the SPD was integrated into Weimar Germany’s capitalist state. However, even if his agenda were enacted, it would exist within a neoliberal framework. Much like FDR’s New Deal coexisted with Jim Crow, imperial plunder, and union busting. Reforms within the system are always contingent on their utility to capital, and their purpose is demobilize the workers.

A meaningful challenge to capitalism requires a long-term strategy that combines direct action, mass education, and dual power structures. Imagine if Sanders had urged supporters to unionize workplaces, organize rent strikes, and create community mutual aid networks alongside electoral engagement. Movements like MAS in Bolivia, show how grassroots power can pressure institutions while cultivating revolutionary consciousness. Instead, his campaign became a referendum on his candidacy, leaving his followers adrift after his defeat.

Bernstein and Sanders, despite their intentions, exemplify the dead end of reformism. Their projects mistake tactical concessions for strategic victory, ignoring capitalism’s relentless drive to commodify and co-opt. In the end, the reformist approach ends up midwifing full blown fascism. By channeling energy into parliamentary politics, the SPD deprioritized mass mobilization. Unions and workers were encouraged to seek concessions rather than challenge capitalist power structures. This eroded class consciousness and left the working class unprepared to confront the nazi threat.

When the nazis gained momentum, the SPD clung to legalistic strategies, refusing to support strikes or armed resistance against Hitler. Their faith in bourgeois democracy blinded them to the existential threat of fascism, which exploited economic despair and nationalist resentment. In the end, SPD famously allied with the nazis against the communists.

The “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party is following in the footsteps of the SPD’s reformist trajectory. While advocating for policies like Medicare for All or climate action, it operates within capitalist constraints, undermining radical change and inadvertently fueling right-wing extremism. The Democrats absorb grassroots energy into electoral campaigns while their reliance on corporate donors ensures watered-down policies that fuel disillusionment.

The SPD’s reformism actively enabled fascism by disorganizing the working class and legitimizing capitalist violence. Similarly, the Democratic Party’s commitment to pragmatic incrementalism sustains a system that breeds reactionary backlash. Trump is a direct product of these policies. We’re just watching history on repeat here.

Yes, I've seen this as well. First of all, 16 devs is a tiny sample, a far bigger study would be needed to get any meaningful results here. Second, it really depends on how experienced people are at using these tools. It took me a while to identify patterns that actually work repeatably and develop intuition for cases where the model is most likely to produce good results.