Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. It cannot be adopted by a state. You’re referring to Socialist states.
You clearly do have problems with Socialism, or at least some forms. Democratic Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, organized similar to a liberal democracy. That’s fine, but the goal of Democratic Socialism is still Communism, eventually.
You were not in fact referring to Communism, which is why I asked that question in the first place.
The USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was headed by a Communist Party, ie a party trying to build towards Communism, but through Socialism. The end-goal of Socialism is to eventually do away with the state, class, and money, as all 3 are used to oppress people, creating Communism. Same with Cuba.
Sweden is not Socialist, it’s a Social Democracy. The mode of production is Capitalism, with expanded social safety nets. Some industries are nationalized, but Capital is largely in the hands of Capitalists, not shared among Workers. Actual Democratic Socialism would be like if Sweden’s Unions took ownership of all Industry, but maintained government structures.
I hope that clears things up! What you call Communism, is in fact a specific form of Marxist-Leninist Socialism, most likely.
What do you mean by successful? By most metrics, implementations have led to higher life expectancies, literacy rates, and more, when compared to preceding systems. In forms like Worker co-operatives, these systems are more stable than Capitalist businesses with higher satisfaction, and in cases like the EZLN where its more Libertarian Socialist, they have successfully created a community for themselves.
That’s why I tried to ask why you think Socialist states can’t develop, because quality of life follows development, not Capitalism.
Well, like I said, that’s the perception I’ve had from observing nations such as Cuba, Russia and, more recently, Venezuela.
I’ll concede that some programs under socialism/communism benefit a lot of people. But at what cost? Failing infrastructure, brain drain, indoctrination…
What country under communism has experienced such improvement in quality of life?
Cuba has higher literacy rates and life expectancy than the US, the USSR doubled life expectancy compared to Tsarist Russia and went from Feudalism style farming to space in less than a century. Let there be no misconception, none of these states were ideal, and all had a good deal of issues, but what you’re describing just didn’t exist. All of them improved upon previous conditions.
Venezuela is majority privatized, it’s a Capitalist state anyways.
Ok. Thanks. And what sources did you use to assert that? I’m not being pedantic or contrarian. It’s just that if I type “did communism improve people’s lives in the USSR and Cuba?” I don’t know if I can trust the answers (whether yes or no.)
A communist state is just that. A nation that adopted communism.
I never mentioned socialism. I think socialism is okay. Or at least democratic socialism.
I was referring to communism.
Communism is a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society. It cannot be adopted by a state. You’re referring to Socialist states.
You clearly do have problems with Socialism, or at least some forms. Democratic Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production, organized similar to a liberal democracy. That’s fine, but the goal of Democratic Socialism is still Communism, eventually.
You were not in fact referring to Communism, which is why I asked that question in the first place.
Thanks for the lesson. Now, what do people mean when they say that Soviet Russia and Cuba are communists?
I don’t think democratic socialism leads towards communism. Hasn’t Sweden implemented a form of socialism, for example?
My questions are not confrontational, but I’ll admit they’re rooted in my limited knowledge but also in my very real experience.
I come from a country that could have been a communism wonder having adopted a socialist approach in 1999, and today it’s in shambles.
Great questions, and I’ll answer both.
The USSR was a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It was headed by a Communist Party, ie a party trying to build towards Communism, but through Socialism. The end-goal of Socialism is to eventually do away with the state, class, and money, as all 3 are used to oppress people, creating Communism. Same with Cuba.
Sweden is not Socialist, it’s a Social Democracy. The mode of production is Capitalism, with expanded social safety nets. Some industries are nationalized, but Capital is largely in the hands of Capitalists, not shared among Workers. Actual Democratic Socialism would be like if Sweden’s Unions took ownership of all Industry, but maintained government structures.
I hope that clears things up! What you call Communism, is in fact a specific form of Marxist-Leninist Socialism, most likely.
Thanks for explaining.
And why is it that there hasn’t been a successful adoption of this movement?
What do you mean by successful? By most metrics, implementations have led to higher life expectancies, literacy rates, and more, when compared to preceding systems. In forms like Worker co-operatives, these systems are more stable than Capitalist businesses with higher satisfaction, and in cases like the EZLN where its more Libertarian Socialist, they have successfully created a community for themselves.
That’s why I tried to ask why you think Socialist states can’t develop, because quality of life follows development, not Capitalism.
Well, like I said, that’s the perception I’ve had from observing nations such as Cuba, Russia and, more recently, Venezuela.
I’ll concede that some programs under socialism/communism benefit a lot of people. But at what cost? Failing infrastructure, brain drain, indoctrination…
What country under communism has experienced such improvement in quality of life?
Cuba has higher literacy rates and life expectancy than the US, the USSR doubled life expectancy compared to Tsarist Russia and went from Feudalism style farming to space in less than a century. Let there be no misconception, none of these states were ideal, and all had a good deal of issues, but what you’re describing just didn’t exist. All of them improved upon previous conditions.
Venezuela is majority privatized, it’s a Capitalist state anyways.
Again, not under Communism, but under Socialism.
Ok. Thanks. And what sources did you use to assert that? I’m not being pedantic or contrarian. It’s just that if I type “did communism improve people’s lives in the USSR and Cuba?” I don’t know if I can trust the answers (whether yes or no.)