77
1 out of 3 Gen Zs in America like communism! Let's go Gen Z!! (lemmy.ml)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/41757245

https://www.cato.org/blog/81-say-they-cant-afford-pay-higher-taxes-next-year

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 9 months ago (30 children)

As long as it's not redfash bs. Actual communism would be great. Stateless, classless, moneyless society built on egalitarianism and scientific progress for all.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    No socialist project has made it to communism, because socialism has never been global, nor has all of production and distribution been collectivized. Instead, the socialism that has existed has managed to bring remarkable results in uplifting the lives of the working classes but not yet made it to a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

    Socialism and fascism are diametric opposites, in socialist countries the working classes control the state and public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while in fascist states the capitalists control the state and private ownership is principle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 9 months ago (27 children)

    Utopian dream. Wouldnt work for one day.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (26 children)

    Why not?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (25 children)

    Communism? What would the motivational indicator be as human beings, to evolve, to create better/bigger things? I highly doubt the internet would had been created in sovjet russia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    Motivation for innovation is the same as it always has been, to improve daily living and satisfy hunan curiosity. These have existed before capitalism and also existed in the soviet union. The USSR was actually quite impressive when it comes to scientific achievement, going from semi-feudalism to space in half a century.

    Where are you getting your ideas about communism from?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (20 children)

    From litterally every bad communistic country that has been: Sovjet Russia, Cuba, etc. Not hard to find. I am living in a socialist country, not that far away from communism. My grandfather lived to experience communism. It is not as nice as you guys think it is. It is a Utopia, where the powerful, gets all the good stuff, and will do everything in there hand, to make sure no one gets a dime, more than everyone else. (Rough police, wide survailance, etc.) It always ends up with NO FREEDOM. Which I am widely against. There is no proof in the world, that communism works what so ever.

    I am not saying capitalsm does neither. That is why liberal socialism is a thing. That works. (scandinavia)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    The urss has an impersive growth for 30 years. The fall was not because of communism but because of corruption and over militarization.

    Innovation is created by small companies than purchased by big cooperation ruled by profit only , it destroy competition this is a product of capitalism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (13 children)

    The USSR, Cuba, PRC, etc. have all been tremendous improvements on what came before, and remarlably progressive movements. Key life metrics like life expectancy, education, housing rates, literacy rates, and more skyrocketed in these countries. I don't know where you live, but unless you live in China, Vitenam, the DPRK, Cuba, Laos, Venezuela, or even Nicaragua, you certainly don't live in socialism.

    Secondly, "liberal socialism" isn't a thing. You're referring to social democracy, ie capitalism with safety nets, and it doesn't work because it relies on imperialism. Scandinavian countries participate in the imperialist system plundering the global south in order to subsidize their safety nets.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    Those metrics improved worldwide during those time periods. It had more to do with the development of vaccines and antibiotics.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Nope, had more to do with land reform, industrialization, and the mass social programs implemented by socialist governments, including literacy campaigns and expanded access to healthcare. Vaccines don't do much if you don't actually give them to people.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    So why did life expectancy go up so much around the rest of the world at the same time? Come on...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

    It didn't go up around the rest of the world evenly. Most countries that adopted socialism were extremely poor and underdeveloped beforehand, and having much better access to healthcare was massively impactful, same with employment, housing, and land. Life expectancy was highest in the imperialist countries like the US and Europe, they didn't have life expectancies in the 30s even pre-vaccine, at least not at the same time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    Which countries are you thinking of? There aren't that many that still consider themselves socialist or communist. Cuba is really the only good example i can think of that fits what you are describing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    The PRC, DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, and Cuba are all socialist countries, with Venezuela and Nicaragua as budding proto-socialist projects. The former USSR was of course also socialist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Cuba and China are currently 56 and 57th in the world for life expectancy. Even if there was a time where their life expectancy improved faster than the rest of the world because of socialist policies, their edge has since then disappeared.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago

    When compared to peer countries, they consistently outperform, thanks to the capabilities of socialism. Cuba is under intense embargo, and the countries at the top are all imperialist, existing only due to plundering the global south.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    SocioLiberal parties controlling the country, is what I call Liberal Socialism. Where we still donate 60% of our wealth for everyone to enjoy, while we still have some sort of free market, where politicians won't directly interfere.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago*

    You're talking about social democracy, capitalism with safety nets. Socialism is neither safety nets nor taxation, but a mode of production centering public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. All of the European social democracies rely on imperialism to support these safety nets, they are closer to global parasites than a closed, self-sufficient system.

    Socialism, as found in the USSR, PRC, Cuba, etc has resulted in dramatic expansions in personal freedoms for the working classes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You wouldn't call the scandinavian welfare model liberal socialism? then I have to have a talk with my society teacher at my college.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    "Liberal socialism" is an oxymoron. Liberalism is the ideology supporting private property rights, socialism is a mode of production surrounding public ownership as the principle aspect of the economy. You're talking about social democracy, ie capitalism with safety nets, and this isn't socialism in the slightest.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    At the end of the day, all I am saying is. I don't believe in communism, there is no evidence it isn't just a dream, and never function in reality

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago

    Communism isn't a religion, it's a mode of production based on collectivized production and distribution. We know socialism works remarkably well, better than capitalist peers. There's no evidence that continuing on from socialism to communism will fail.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent