You can only get more conservative when you have things to protect like a house and a pension.
Most millennials retirement plan atm is die of heatstroke in 150 degree weather in a 8 person shared apartment in Alaska.
I have a house and a pretty sizable retirement account.
I will GLADLY take a lower home value, higher taxes on my retirement, higher taxes in general, so long as the ultra wealthy are also taxed accordingly.
Or you’ll get more communist when you have people to protect, like children or friends who start getting sick now that they’re not young anymore
I became a socialist because I was an “essential employee” during the height of the pandemic. I was treated like shit by my company, the customers, and the government while they sung my praise. I watched my grandpa get good cancer treatment with the VA (shocker, I know, but it happens) while my sister and grandma had to fight insurance for cancer treatment.
We can’t make a perfect world, but we can make a better one. And it starts with a socialist economy.
I became much more progressive after living in a “blue state” for much of my adult life. It’s hard to miss that the most successful economies in the us are also the ones who pay most attention to quality of life. We can look at the contrast in our neighboring states, and see the advantages brought by near universal healthcare, investments in an excellent education system, care about the environment, higher minimum wage, support for unions, and so much more
If you’re referring to Nordic Social Democracies, they fund their safety nets via Imperialism, they can’t exist without impoverishing and exploiting the Global South. It’s the epitome of the Labor Aristocracy.
No, sorry,I was being us-centric - it seemed like that’s where the thread was.
As one very specific example, when COViD funding for school lunches ended, some us states decided to no longer provide free school lunches. Massachusetts passed a “millionaire tax” and funded free school lunches out of that
As a slightly older example, Massachusetts passed effectively universal healthcare coverage, signed into law by governor Mitt Romney, and later served as the model for the Affordable Care Act
Looking at school system ratings by us state, I see what looks like a strong correlation between excellent schools and a stronger economy.
It’s the same issue as the Nordics, the US is a de-industrialized nation that makes the bulk of its profits off of Imperialism.
You can only get more conservative when you have things to protect like a house and a pension.
In aggragate, that’s the more reliable way to make a population more conservative, but remember that a reasonable portion of fascists in a society that is going in that direction are going to be people who either lost that or never had it and, in either case, blame some minority for that fact. (The majority are still people like you describe, though, the petite bourgeois, etc., who feel insecure in their holdings)
I agree if you mean neoliberal-conservative
I assume they meant conservative, not fascist.
That and the lead poisoning.
Luckyyyyyy!
Statement unclear whether increased conservatism is the natural result of property/capital or if property/capital are merely requisite.
Whenever people say that you grow more conservative when you get older, they’re working from the premise that you’ll grow more affluent and comfortable later in life. For Americans, that just isn’t true anymore. Wages are mostly stagnant, home ownership is much less attainable, and cost of living is at an all time high. Yet for some reason, pundits just can’t figure out why millenials aren’t getting more conservative as they age, or why zoomers appear to be following this trend.
Yeah, though there’s also the phenomena of older folks generally being more against change and clinging in the past more, the idea being that you have less future to look forward to (since you’re closer to death than your birth) so instead you look towards the past and become nostalgic about it.
Oh yeah, that’s definitely why older folks are socially conservative, although usually when I hear people say this (and definitely in the context of this meme) they’re talking about becoming fiscally conservative.
there’s also the phenomena of older folks generally being more against change and clinging in the past more,
That’s more a consequence of the moment. Older people like stable material conditions. And with programs like pensions, public health care, and a safe suburban neighborhood with good amenities, they see the status quo as worth defending.
But swing through North Africa and the Middle East during the Arab Spring (anyone remember that?) or pop over to the UK in the wake of the last election cycle or visit an impoverished neighborhood in Haiti or a bombed neighborhood in Lebanon and you’ll find plenty of elderly revolutionaries.
you look towards the past and become nostalgic about it
People may be nostalgic for their youth, but they are rarely nostalgic for being treated like a child.
And you’re going to find it hard to locate a South African native nostalgic for Apartheid or a Pole or Romanian who misses occupation or a Chinese national who pines for the Century of Humiliation.
Westerners coming out of their post war pre-Reagan Golden Era just have more to be nostalgic for.
yup it applies only to the privileged class, and of course only people in that class would think that is the general experience.
All of that is the same here in Germany. Check out the stats on home ownership here… But oh man are the kids flipping to the AfD (far right nazi party) quick and in huge numbers. It’s scary to see.
Honestly, that makes sense to me. It seems like when economic systems start breaking down for people, they turn to populism. It’s either left-wing populism, which argues for reigning in the excesses of capitalism, or right-wing populism, which scapegoats minority or immigrant groups. Right now, the youth in the U.S. are interested in left-wing populism, but right-wing populism (AKA Trumpism) is the only thing making it into the political mainstream.
left-wing populism, which argues for reigning in the excesses of capitalism
Left wing means ending Capitalism, not just “reigning it in,” which never works long-term.
“Left-wing,” is a very broad term. In the Weimar Republic, yes, the left-wing alternative to right-wing populism was communism. In America today, Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders are the left-wing alternative. If that doesn’t fall in line with your definition of, "left-wing,’ that’s fine, but it most people wouldn’t define it as exclusively anti-capitalist ideologies.
The Overton Window is relative, sure, but that’s only useful in defined constraints, and only for one point in time. Leftism is socialist, rightism is Capitalist.
Bernie is a Social Democrat as well.
…and Sanders himself defines Democratic Socialism as the completion of the New Deal reforms, not a gradual transition to a socialist economic system. There’s a difference between the Overton Window shifting and a gradual change in definition over generations, but if you want definitions to remain entirely static, then we’re both using left-wing incorrectly, as it’s, “real,” definition is opposing monarchy’s veto power over parliament.
Yes, he calls himself a Democratic Socialist while being a Social Democrat, I’m aware.
Left wing in the modern context refers to anti-Capitalism.
Where are those youth in the US? While they seem loud online, why hasn’t that translated into votes?
Because for every loud voice you read on lemmy there’s 1000 boomers and nut jobs that either a) don’t use the Internet regularly b) don’t leave Facebook or c) hide away in right wing circlejerk sites like truth social and 4chan. A and B just being old, and none of them being people that can handle having their views challenged, which is definitely going to happen in a space like this.
The youth in the US is mostly actually leftist, and they give them the choice to vote for a centrist or a right wing candidate. That’s a big part of the reason. Also, just the fact that the youth also votes less, on average, even those youth who identify as right wing.
I know because I am an actual leftist, and I didn’t vote for a long time into my adulthood, because it feels like a scam. I finally got over the fact that not participating in the vote is worse, but I completely understand the apathy amongst actual leftists in the US. We’ve had no true representation in our whole lives.
If you don’t vote for the centrist candidate, you can’t object to the right extremist.
Actually this does track that a lot of what I see online is people who seem unwilling to compromise: neither are what I want so both the same. You need to be willing to vote for the one closest to what you want, and work toward moving that leftward over time.
We had a huge success with “The Squad” getting enough attention before Biden’s first nomination to influence the party platform. As a minority voter, this path is more likely to succeed than not voting
If you don’t vote for the centrist candidate, you can’t object to the right extremist.
You absolutely can. Voting is not the extent of political action.
Actually this does track that a lot of what I see online is people who seem unwilling to compromise: neither are what I want so both the same. You need to be willing to vote for the one closest to what you want, and work toward moving that leftward over time.
You can’t move right-wingers left through thoughts and prayers, this is astrology.
We had a huge success with “The Squad” getting enough attention before Biden’s first nomination to influence the party platform. As a minority voter, this path is more likely to succeed than not voting
And yet they accomplish nothing and are kept like barking dogs on leashes. The electoral process is a filter, it prevents radical change. See how the monsters treat Rashida Tlaib.
You can’t move right-wingers left
Exactly. If you have to chose between right wing and centrist , elect the centrist and move them a bit to the left. prepare to do this through multiple elections
And yet they accomplish nothing
And yet President Biden is very centrist but has passed some of the most far reaching changes ever on the environment, renewable energy, unionization, etc.
An example of both is climate change regulation. Legislation passed during Biden’s term should get us about halfway to our net carbon goal. A pessimist may focus on that not being nearly enough, but I see a new center, where we can have more success working on more substantial change
Actually, youth turnout is pretty high right now, with record turnout being set recently for both midterms and presidential elections. In 2020, turnout for the under thirty crowd was 50%, a possible new record, and it was 30% and 27% in 2018 and 2022 respectively, which are 30 year highs. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party leadership prefers centrist candidates, and frequently puts its thumb on the scale to ensure that moderate candidates win, so that turnout isn’t translating into progressive politics.
Funny enough, just after I made the original comment, I read an article about how the youngest U.S. voters are starting to lean further right than before, so it’s possible the ship has sailed on this all together. Given how aggressively the right wing has been to trying to indoctrinate young voters, who are watching Democrats successfully suppress left-wing populism while Republicans embrace right-wing populism, it’s possible the youth are deciding that the far-right offers them only chance for change. I hope not, though, because then we’re screwed.
German government should just ban the AfD and end with it.
deleted by creator
The Nazi Party being banned was good, just not enough
You 100% can, fascists are a national threat. Entertaining them via “civility” is nonsense.
Fuck this “goody two-shoes” bullshit, ban and repress.
What if you start to become better off, but realize so many other parents are unable to provide for their kids like you can, and you can’t hope to provide for your kids like the wealthy can? What if paying exorbitant amounts of money for your kids education drives home the point that we need to make that investment for all kids futures? What if you are more often on the hiring side and realize your well being depends on the next generation having opportunities and the means to successfully achieve them?
Then you are alright with me. I think a large amount of our problems as a species come from those with a lack of empathy. If everyone thought like you, then we wouldn’t have the vast wealth inequalities and greatly varying qualities of life between working class and upper class.
On the other hand, if everyone had empathy in the first place, I think we wouldn’t have the economic systems that put profits over people.
The Mode of Production determines social thought, not the other way around.
You don’t think that more empathetic people would be involved in creating fairer modes of production? I think sociopaths and those lacking empathy are at least part of the reason that capitalism still runs rampant in the world, but its just my opinion.
If you downvoted me don’t know why, just adding my opinion.
I know plenty of people that grew up in capitalism and still have empathy, and also hate capitalism, so I guess I don’t understand exactly what you mean, either.
You don’t think that more empathetic people would be involved in creating fairer modes of production? I think sociopaths and those lacking empathy are at least part of the reason that capitalism still runs rampant in the world, but its just my opinion.
The base creates and reinforces the superstructure, which reinforces the base, not the other way around.
The base creates and reinforces the superstructure, which reinforces the base, not the other way around.
I don’t know what this has to do with empathetic people and sociopaths. I understand that the system that we live in is more likely to produce sociopaths than a Socialistic one, but I don’t think that doesn’t mean we can’t talk about them and their hindrance to our advancement, considering that they do indeed exist.
I usually appreciate you spreading knowledge, but I don’t really see what you are trying to add here. Nothing I wrote disagrees with anything you said, and vice versa.
You said if people were more empathetic we would have a better Mode of Production, but the process is reversed.
Then you’re a good person, which is a statistical minority. Most people will never intentionally vote against their economic self-interests by raising their own taxes (although you can trick them into voting against their economic self interests; Republicans have been doing that for years by using racist dog-whistles to attack entitlement programs and pushing discredited trickle-down economic theories).
I’ve only gone further Left.
I grew up in a rightwing household, and unquestioningly drank the koolaid until my late teens. The right’s bullshit eventually became impossible to ignore, so I dove right into the ‘both sides!’ trap and rode the Libertarian train for a while.
It became really easy to articulate what I didn’t like about the right; describing what was bad about the left was just echoes of Fox bitching about things like them voting on emotion instead of logic… but no real examples.
Around my mid-twenties I finally realized ^that was projection; then 2016 happened and holy shit they’re running Trump and Hillary?? Easily the two most hated candidates in my lifetime… against Gary Johnson - an admittedly goofy personality but likeable and most importantly not crazy, THIS IS THE LP’S TIME TO SHINE! …yeah they got 3% of the vote. We won’t ever see better conditions for a 3rd victory, so, pipedream shattered.
Guess I’ll have to just pick a lesser evil, so let’s see what we have to work with…
-
there’s the red team. Burn through our fossil resources with reckless abandon. War, war, war, and more war. Shave social services down to nothing so we can claim ‘fiscal responsibility’ which is good I guess (hey! eyes down here, we’re done talking about the war part), a blatant integration of religion and politics, and they want to make life as miserable as possible for my gay/colored/female/nonchristian friends. Fuck, that’s pretty bad…
-
Alright, next we have the blue team, which is the opposite of all those things, at the exceedingly high cost of… getting cockblocked by the red team when they try to implement those things… and… well there was that time Bill lied about getting a blowjob- outrageous! Surely the red team does a better job of keeping it in their pants… *checks* …uhh, nope! Fuck, I’m starting to become aware of my own cognitive dissonance and it feels like absolute shit.
So I start voting one issue at a time, crunching both options against eachother and choosing the one that’s best for the US. That way there’s no bias and I won’t be part of this tribal bullshit plagueing our politics… Weird, when I ignore affiliation and vote on policy alone, my ballot becomes solid blue. What are the odds of that?! Next election, solid blue again. And again.
My desire to be ‘independent’ on label alone is pretty much gone at this point, and I’m being more and more vocal about supporting leftwing policies. Family isn’t a fan, but they hit me with the shit OP is poking fun at - I only shifted blue because I’m poor! Once I make more money, just you wait and see, I’ll come crawling right back.
Now, I’m not rich or anything, but I’m (finally!) not living paycheck to paycheck. During all ^that I wandered into the military which gave me access to all kinds of socialized resources which have enabled me to get where I’m at now and have made a pretty significant improvement on my life. The thing that pisses me off about those socialized services is WHY THE FUCK DOESN’T EVERYONE HAVE THIS?! So wearing camo for 4 years for some reason got me this VIP tour of what we should should be doing for everyone.
I was a late bloomer, I got there. I haven’t missed a single election since 2016, big or small. Solid blue. I’ve gotten to the point where I’ll even look up the voter registration of candidates for nonpolitical positions like judges, and red is a deal breaker.
The better off I become, the more blue I get. The notion of red-shift with income is trash.
Alright, next we have the blue team, which is the opposite of all those things, at the exceedingly high cost of… getting cockblocked by the red team when they try to implement those things… and… well there was that time Bill lied about getting a blowjob- outrageous! Surely the red team does a better job of keeping it in their pants… *checks* …uhh, nope! Fuck, I’m starting to become aware of my own cognitive dissonance and it feels like absolute shit.
The DNC isn’t to the opposite of the GOP, they are aligned on the vast majority of issues and use the rest to yap loudly in disagreement. Dems aren’t left.
During all ^that I wandered into the military which gave me access to all kinds of socialized resources which have enabled me to get where I’m at now and have made a pretty significant improvement on my life.
Social programs aren’t socialized, that’s a bit of a misnomer.
However US Corporations that exploit US Workers and Workers abroad are subsidized, even for their losses. Us Taxpayers pay them while they exploit us further and Social Services get gutted and crumble. Gotta love neoliberalism, where socialized welfare is bad for workers, but good for corporations.
Edit: not actual socialism like worker owned, just socialized losses, as in the working class paying taxes foot the bill for the corporations benefit and privatized gains
Have you read Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism? It analyzes modern Imperialism, where workers in the Global North are both exploited by their bourgeoisie and yet benefit from the fruits of Imperialism, forming a labor aristocracy.
It isn’t Socialism for corporations, it’s Imperialism in action.
No, I have not. I’ve only touched on the book Consequences of Capitalism so far. Thanks for the req, I’ll check it out.
Socialism isn’t the right word, it’s not like they are worker owned in any regard. It’s just that the subsidies they receive for the benefit of their private business and profits for shareholders come from taxpayer money. Further redistributing weather to the wealthy at the expense of the working class Americans, and further enabling them to exploit us more. Their gains are privatized and their losses are socialized by the working class.
No problem! Lenin’s writing is very eye-opening as it’s Marxism applied to more modern, international Capitalism, but he may not make the most sense if you aren’t already familiar with Marxism.
I’m somewhat familiar with the principals, but not enough to thoroughly explain them in a casual conversation.
It’s definitely eye-opening to contextualize things like Nationalism, Fascism, Colonialism, and Imperialism within the Capitalist mode of production
Edited my comment to distinguish between genuine socialism and the welfare of corporations being socialized thru taxpayer money for their benefit and our expense.
You may want to swing back to Principles of Communism as well as Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels, then Wage Labor and Capital as well as Value, Price and Profit by Marx before getting into Lenin if you’re not confident in the basics of Marxism. Lenin is Marxism applied to early 1900s Capitalism, which has largely grown along the lines he analyzed and predicted (among numerous other analysis in theory and practice).
there’s the red team. Burn through our fossil resources with reckless abandon. War, war, war, and more war.
The blue team is doing the same thing: burning through fossil resources in the name of war. The military complex doesn’t stop or change when blue or red are elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Israel_in_the_Israel–Hamas_war
I encourage you to keep studying and researching. Politics isn’t a football match where teams compete against each others and “left” and “right” are two buzzwords.
https://archive.org/details/lawauthorityanar00kropuoft/page/n5/mode/2up
I encourage you to keep studying and researching. Politics isn’t a football match where teams compete against each others and “left” and “right” are two buzzwords.
No offense but I think OP has a better grasp of this than you do
So, what do you think is happening in Palestine? In Lebanon?
You’re acting like that’s the only policy point that exists. There are meaningful differences in other areas. I don’t have enough non-propagandized information to argue for sure that there are differences in the middle east war department, but the parties certainly aren’t the same on all war-related matters (see Ukraine/Russia as an example). Their rhetoric is different for the middle east but again I can’t speak for their actions. And obviously their non-war policies are drastically different.
Well said!
Thanks for sharing! I feel like this is representative of a small but important political group recently.
-
I am more conservative in the sense that I see things with more nuance. I understand societies are very complex systems in a fragile equilibrium and that my naive solutions to the world’s problems are not feasible.
And yet, each day I’m more convinced we need to eat the rich.
Edit: We need to create a whole new system to prevent people from getting that rich and to keep the power to the people
Eating the rich isn’t a coup de grace, it’s the beginning.
You’re bringing up a good point. People who say we’ll become more “conservative” are usually equivocating on the meaning of the word. It’s not like we’re going to wake up tomorrow and decide that global warming is a hoax, or that we should stop eating cats and dogs. Of course we’ll keep doing those things.
The people who say you become more conservative usually mean that you will become more well off. And indeed when they earn their financial freedom, they want to protect the status quo. So they start seeing others as threats: be it young people wanting more rights, employees wanting fair salaries, immigrants coming for your hard earned money, everyone is a threat. This is the how the mind of an unempathic person works.
I’m old enough now that I’m more financially secure than I ever have been before, and I still think we should tear it all down and create a more equitable system for everyone. Perhaps I’m in the minority though for people my age.
Politicians sew division, fear, and hatred knowing that this will allow them to continue fleecing everyone who works for a living. We should never forget that it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.
or that we should stop eating cats and dogs. Of course we’ll keep doing those things.
Wait, what?
deleted by creator
I don’t know what it’s like to live under communism, but I do know what it’s like to live under capitalism and it’s grip tightens more and more with every passing year.
I don’t think anyone knows what it’s like, was there any communist country which wasn’t also both a dictatorship and poor?
Pretty hard seeing the good and bad of communism when it’s always alongside the two worse things that can happen to a country.
P.S. Wait, actually not the two worse things… there’s also war, and that applies to most of them too.
Capitalism doesn’t benefit the vast majority of us. But the purpose of capitalism is to enrich a fortunate few at the expense of the rest of us who will be reduced to perpetual wage slavery until we die. Capitalism is working a treat in that regard.
That point is def made in that link.
Have you read my comment?
I know capitalism don’t work, everybody does now.
That has nothing to do with the fact we didn’t manage to have one successful exemple of communism either…
Wrong, from the link I posted:
Capitalist hegemony has short-circuited people into buying wildly illogical and ridiculous propaganda like: “Lift yourselves up by the bootstraps” (which shows the almost religious power of capitalist propaganda, that the impossible can become possible), or “Communism doesn’t work”, when in fact Communism did work extremely well.
Examples from this post by /u/bayarea415, Stephen Gowans - Do publicly owned, planned economies work, Ian Goodrum - Socialism vs Capitalism and quality of life, and yogthos’s USSR acheivements post about the USSR specifically:
- USSR had a more nutritious diet than the US, according to the CIA. Calories consumed surpassed the US. source. Ended famines.
- Productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. It was illegal to hire others and accumulate personal wealth from their labor.
- Had the 2nd fastest growing economy of the 20th century after Japan. The USSR started out at the same level of economic development and population as Brazil in 1920, which makes comparisons to the US, an already industrialized country by the 1920s, even more spectacular.
- Free Universal Health care, and most doctors per capita in the world. 42 doctors per 10k population, vs 24 in Denmark and Sweden, 19 in US.
- Had near zero unemployment, continuous economic growth for 70 straight years. The “continuous” part should make sense – the USSR was a planned, non-market economy, so market crashes á la capitalism were pretty much impossible.
- USSR moved from 58.5-hour workweeks to 41.6 hour workweeks (-0.36 h/yr) between 1913 and 1960
- USSR averaged 22 days of paid leave in 1986 while USA averaged 7.6 in 1996., 2
- In 1987, people in the USSR could retire with pension at 55 (female) and 60 (male) while receiving 50% of their wages at a at minimum. Meanwhile, in USA the average retirement age was 62-67.
- All education, including university level, free. 2
- 99% literacy.
- Saved the world from Fascism, Taking on the majority of Nazi divisions, and killing 90% of Nazi soldiers. Bore the enormous cost of blood and pain in WW2 (25M dead), with the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare.. An estimated 70% of Soviet housing was destroyed by Nazi invasion. Nazis were in retreat after the battle of Stalingrad in 1942, a full 2 years before the US landed troops in normandy.
- Doubled life expectancy. Eliminated poverty.
- Combatted sex inequality. Equal wages for men and women mandated by law, but sex inequality, although not as pronounced as under capitalism, was perpetuated in social roles. Very important lesson to learn.
- Combatted Racial inequality.
- Feudalism to space travel in 40 years. First satellite, rocket, space walk, woman, man, animal, space station, moon and mars probes.
- Soviet power production per capita in 1990 was more than the EU, Great Britain, or China’s in 2014.
- Housing was socialized by localized community organizations, and there was virtually no homelessness. Houses were often shared by two families throughout the 20s and 30s – so unlike capitalism, there were no empty houses, but the houses were very full. In the 40s there was the war, and in the 50s there were a number of orphans from the war. The mass housing projects began in the 60s, they were completed in the 70s, and by the 70s, there were homeless people, but they often had genuine issues with mental health.
- 66% of Russians polled in 2015 want the USSR back. The story is the same for all the former eastern-bloc countries: 72% of Hungarians say their country is worse off now than under communism, 57% of East Germans, 63% of Romanians, 77% of Czechs, 81% of Serbs (for Yugoslavia), 70% of Ukrainians, 60% of Bulgarians.
When it is claimed that a system works, we should ask, who it works for. Capitalism benefits a tiny number of rapacious capitalists, to the detriment of the rest of us, while Socialism works for the masses.
For an overview of the soviet experiment, watch this brilliant talk by Micheal Parenti, or read his article, Left anticommunism, the unkindest cut.
Also read this great article by Stephen Gowans, Do publicly owned, planned economies work?. Audio on youtube
Bonus vid about cyber-communism: Paul Cockshott - Going beyond money.
More sources: Socialism Crash Course, Socialism FAQ, Glossary.
That’s all awesome. So it’s still around, right? It didn’t collapse within one generation or anything, did it?
What do you believe to be the cause of the fall of the USSR?
The leader of it kinda sold out and started simping for Pizza Hut
It was overthrown by the USA, as the USA strangled most attempts worldwide in their cradles also.
Primarily via the arms race in the USSR’s case. You can read more about that here:
That’s a yes, it collapsed within one generation. Such a strong method of government!
If all it took, according to you, is one department of one nation to bring it down, it was not strong.
But we both know that’s not why it collapsed.
Thanks for your reading of Gabriel Rockhill. I’ve seen some of his interviews, and they are impressive.
A US sponsored executive coup is not equivalent to collapsing due to its own problems.
I don’t have a post for this, but also as a testament to China’s poverty alleviation campaigns, world poverty is increasing if we exclude China.
When they write the history of the early 21st century, China’s uplifting of millions of people out of poverty will be one of humanity’s greatest acheivements.
Removed by mod
I don’t think anyone knows what it’s like, was there any communist country which wasn’t also both a dictatorship and poor?
Most steadily improved their material conditions and did not have dictatorships.
Pretty hard seeing the good and bad of communism when it’s always alongside the two worse things that can happen to a country.
Explain, please.
P.S. Wait, actually not the two worse things… there’s also war, and that applies to most of them too.
Are you saying most Communist countries intentionally started wars?
Most didn’t? Can you give a few exemples then?
You don’t start a war unintentionally… but i didn’t say start, just being in a war.
Also i don’t imply it was because of communism, my point is that, how can we judge communism if other devastating sociological factors are involved.
Now, i don’t have a point if you say most of them were better for it, but i don’t know any who did so i’d love to educate myself…
A few examples include the USSR, Cuba, PRC, etc. Life standards dramatically improved, life expectancy doubled in the USSR and PRC and jumped around half in Cuba, literacy rates jumped to 99%+ from less than 50% prior, education access, healthcare access, food access, housing access, all dramatically improved. Wealth inequality also fell down dramatically.
Here’s an example of wealth inequality over time in Russia:
And how the Soviet Democratic process functioned:
So USSR was a dictatorship, the country was in ruin after WW2
The 3 factor i mentioned are there.
The data shows what everyone knows, capitalism increase inequality. But what it doesn’t show is how communism made the country improve, because it didn’t.
What i’m saying is, it couldn’t help because of the war and Stalin. We don’t know if it would’ve otherwise.
Cuba again is a dictatorship, and wasn’t rich.
The PRC is a dictatorship, China went on a horrible famine with Mao. Nowadays getting richer only because of how their economy is now fully capitalist.
So let’s say you had significant data that showed it improved some things socially. And let say you somehow managed to prove its causal and not coincidence.
I would still rather not say dictatorships like USSR or PRC are good to live under.
That’s my point, even if communism was good, dictatorship is a plague that makes any system a nightmare.
So USSR was a dictatorship
No, not even the CIA thought the USSR was a dictatorship. You can’t just make unsourced blanket claims based on your emotions.
the country was in ruin after WW2
Yes, they did around 4/5ths of the fighting against the Nazis in totality.
The 3 factor i mentioned are there.
If you conjure them into existence from your imagination, sure.
The data shows what everyone knows, capitalism increase inequality. But what it doesn’t show is how communism made the country improve, because it didn’t.
GDP per capita rose dramatically, wealth inequality dropped massively, life expectancy doubled, literacy rates trippled. The USSR had free healthcare and education, and guaranteed housing and employment. They ended famine, and made it to space from being a semi-feudal semi-industrialized nation 50 years prior. They democratized the government structure. Life absolutely improved not only under Communism, but because of it.
What i’m saying is, it couldn’t help because of the war and Stalin. We don’t know if it would’ve otherwise.
What on Earth are you trying to say? Of course the USSR had to focus on its military to survive, which impeded consumer good production, but life absolutely improved.
Cuba again is a dictatorship, and wasn’t rich.
Cuba is richer than under Batista despite a cruel embargo, and isn’t a dictatorship. You keep throwing out unsourced opinions as though they are facts.
The PRC is a dictatorship, China went on a horrible famine with Mao. Nowadays getting richer only because of how their economy is now fully capitalist.
The PRC practices whole-process people’s democracy, the famine under Mao was the last famine in China’s history of frequent famines, and China is Socialist, it has a Socialist Market Economy based on Socialism With Chinese Characteristics.
So let’s say you had significant data that showed it improved some things socially. And let say you somehow managed to prove its causal and not coincidence.
I have.
I would still rather not say dictatorships like USSR or PRC are good to live under.
You would have sided with the Tsars? The Kuomintang? The Russian Federation? What on Earth are you talking about, here? You’d rather live in societies with less freedom and lower quality of life metrics?
That’s my point, even if communism was good, dictatorship is a plague that makes any system a nightmare.
You have no point, only vibes and a firehose of falsehood. Read Blackshirts and Reds.
Sorry i’m harsh Cuba isn’t quite a dictatorship i give you that one (Although not quite democratic either), maybe that could be a good study.
But saying Stalin or Mao are not dictatorships is just delusional.
The CIA as a source is pretty funny though.
I get it Stalin didn’t quite have all powers, like that’s what it took to classify a government a dictatorship. As if one-party system couldn’t be complex.
(And yes socialist market economy, that really makes a world of difference from capitalist market)
Also to make things clear i wouldn’t have sided with tsar or anyone else than Lenin. I do believe in communism.
Now some improvements may be from communism, i hope so, but don’t pretend you can prove it more than i. It’s not like life expectancy, literacy rate or other factors alike couldn’t rise with another system. It’s not like you could eliminate the possibility of third factors in a time with so much change in all areas of life.
But i sure wouldn’t have followed Stalin in his totalitarian regime. I sure hope if communism was a solution today it would be democratic.
Are you a commie?
Of course, I’m a Marxist-Leninist. Most people on Lemmy are leftist of some sort.
Most of us here are communists. Anti-communist platforms like reddit already exist.
Holy cow you people are real. Wild
Fascists masquerading as communism doesn’t count
Straight up I was conservative as a young teen, because that’s what EVERYONE was here in Utah when I was in the LDS church.
Now I just keep floating more and more left as time goes on.
I went from “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” in high school to liberal to communist to anarchist back to communist now I think I’m democratic socialist in my 30s? Just basic safety nets and unions, please.
Same homie. I can’t even imagine what it was like to be a leftist after 9/11. The whole fucking country was blood thirsty. Heard my friends say some of the most abhorrent shit, and just brushed it off as patriotism.
So fucking glad I found my way out.
When I was a teen, I was definitely fiscally conservative. Paying better attention to how you use money is easy to understand and a central pillar of politics. But it was a sheltered life in a town with all well-paying jobs, no diversity, and an excellent education system.
Now I keep floating left the more I realize how many people missed out of that picture.
But it was my kids that really did it. Fighting for better opportunities for them easily turns into wanting a better world for them to live in. I’m more worried than ever about my government’s poor money habits and when it will eventually come due, but we’re in the middle of a rolling disaster of short term and misplaced spending, our politicians more concerned with scapegoats and spite than actually benefitting their constituents
My brother in Christ, im sorry to inform you but the upcoming fiscal crisis are gonna be some of the least of your kids worries. I’m still probably closer in age to you rather than them, but i grew up knowing that money is gonna mean jack shit once the water starts boiling (metaphorically, but hyperbolically realistic). We’re the frogs in the pot and the economy is gonna be the least of our troubles. We’re seeing a global rise in fascism, climate disasters, war, inequity, and yes financial instability. If you wanna help your kids, get involved in the community and organize. Start unions at your work places and march in protests for a better future. I’m not talking about a stronger or more fashy future, but one where we work together. Join or make mutual aid networks where you live. The best thing you can do for your children (imo, coming from a young person) is help set up the future you want for them. I would hope that’s one of community and mutual aid where we help each other not because we expect a reward or are paid to, but because together we stand taller and can hoist up those who cannot stand on their own. I hope i don’t sound too preachy, but it sounds like you love your kids so I implore you to get involved further. The future did not look kind to me when I was a child, and it looks even less hospitable now. We can change that. Direct action and mutual aid are the way forward to a better future imo.
Honestly, if your goals include conserving an inhabitable environment for the human race in the future, conserving a semblance of wealth for everyone but the top, like, dozen people on Earth, conserving the rights of workers and consumers against an overwhelming opposition, conserving democracy for future generations (and all that against the best efforts of a supposedly “conservative” party), your parents may have been right.
What if my goals include family values, such as opportunity for my kids to earn a good living, live a long and healthy life, enjoy the environment, in a world better than the one I had?
Then you have to join in the fight for those things and educate yourself. This world is not getting better, and the reason for that is the productive political economic system in which we live.
I have the same values and I am a Marxist communist. That means I work for political struggle with the systems that oppress and exploit to for improving conditions for all, and also work to try and educate workers about the class dynamics of this struggle, and the revolutionary potential of the working class.
“You will be more conservative as you grow older” is not a truth, but a threat. If you don’t become a conservative under their regime, you won’t become old.
I have become aggressively more anti-capitalist as I’ve grown older. At 56, with a nice professional career mostly behind me, I am vigorously ANTIFA EAT THE RICH ACAB.
Well some people never learn I guess.
Some of us learn better lessons.
I know that conflating Liberals and Conservatives is practically lemmys official pass time, but I have to point out they are not the same.
Liberals and conservatives are more similar than liberals and progressives.
No, I have a lot of experience in liberal organizations and they are not, despite the memes, closer to conservatism than progressivism. It honestly makes me feel like most people on lemmy have never really worked with liberal groups.
The major differences between a liberal and a social democrat or progressive comes down largely to deciding when a market has failed and when to use government intervention, both Liberals and progressives are fine with intervention, only the threshold changea. We want the same things, mostly, but disagree on how to get them.
Conservatives, philosophical Conservatives anyway, won’t typically even consider such a thing, and often do not even want the same things as Liberals or progressives.
This both sides same stuff just hurts progressive causes, because it sours mushy people with little to no real philosophy on voting for liberal parties. Those people flip flop back to Conservatives when they get angry and we lose the progress we’ve made, as is about to happen in Canada.
The major differences between a liberal and a social democrat or progressive comes down largely to deciding when a market has failed and when to use government intervention,
Okay sounds like you’re just describing different labels for liberalism.
Compare these people to a communist who thinks we should literally nationalize and worker-self-manage the relevant sectors of economy and you’ll see what people are trying to tell you about how liberals and conservatives are basically the same.
No, I have a lot of experience in liberal organizations and they are not, despite the memes, closer to conservatism than progressivism.
Perhaps if you redefine progressivism.
The major differences between a liberal and a social democrat or progressive comes down largely to deciding when a market has failed and when to use government intervention, both Liberals and progressives are fine with intervention, only the threshold changea. We want the same things, mostly, but disagree on how to get them.
Yep, you redefined it.
Conservatives, philosophical Conservatives anyway, won’t typically even consider such a thing, and often do not even want the same things as Liberals or progressives.
Conservatives often do, and the distance between genuine progressivism and liberalism is shorter than liberalism and conservativism.
This both sides same stuff just hurts progressive causes, because it sours mushy people with little to no real philosophy on voting for liberal parties. Those people flip flop back to Conservatives when they get angry and we lose the progress we’ve made, as is about to happen in Canada.
Electoralism will not save you.
rofl! The difference vetween a progressive and liberal is NOT just when they decide to intervene in corporations…
American liberals want to means test EVERYTHING that could concievably go to a poor person. A progressive realizes the red tape is fucking stupid and expensive in its own right. Remember the COVID funds? Sucked up by megacorporations more than small businesses like it was supposed to be for? Notice how American liberals didn’t go after those corporations or really care that the money instantly dried up for smaller fries?
Yea, American liberals are ABSOLUTELY closer to American conservatives in practicality. It doesn’t matter how many polite words they use if the end result is FUNCTIONALLY THE SAME. No, conservatives wouldn’t have given any money to poor people, but as already said, liberals didn’t care that corporations with lawyers that could push all the red tape got the money, not small businessesthat actually neededrhe help.
They BOTH serve to drain the government of public funds. You’ve just fallen for the pleasantries they put on the same negative slant of actions. No, liberals are not fascists themselves, but they’re always, always dumb enough to make things suck enough that fascists sound nice to fools.
I think the fact that you’ve spent a lot of time in liberal organizations is why you think that way about where it falls on the continuum between progressivism and conservatism.
Interesting that you characterize my statement as "both sides"ing. I would say the thrust of my statement is not “both sides” but “one side”. America does not have a progressive party, only conservative and conservative-lite. Given the choice, of course I’ll choose the latter, not least because the former is so far off the deep end it may never recover as a party. That does not mean I think that both parties are the same.
Visually:
--------Progressivism ------------------------ Center ------ Liberalism --------------------------- Conservatism.
Conservatives are a subcategory of liberal. They aren’t conflated, that’s like saying thumbs and fingers get conflated.
Both the democratic party and the republican party are liberal parties. One of them got scratched.
A lot of conservatives are liberals. The two terms are not mutually exclusive.
Yet both liberals and conservatives (in your sense of the words) say this.
Based on that link it says that conservatives are at odds with and are critical of liberalism. There is a subset of conservatism called liberal conservativism that incorporates liberal stances into the conservative position however.
I was lazy picking Wikipedia when everyone knows it’s got an American brainrot problem. That’s entirely my fault.
It is true that “conservative opposition to liberalism” is a thing that has exist and currently exists, but the issue is that “conservative” is a relative term, it refers not to an absolute ideological tendency (like liberalism does) but to the necessarily relative value of seeking to conserve the current order of things. This is relative because the order of things can be different, and that changes the question of if you want to conserve it (conservative), go back to some past state, real or imagined (reactionary), or advance to some future state of greater development (progressive).
So when liberal revolutionaries set the west on fire, conservatives were in conflict with them because the conservatives were trying to preserve the feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order that the liberals opposed. Now that the liberals in the west are no longer revolutionaries but overwhelmingly the establishment and without any serious contest, the acting of promoting liberalism over other ideologies is conservative and the old position of promoting a feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order is reactionary. The rise of neoliberalism, in particular, represents the overwhelming historical victory of liberalism over both reactionary and progressive forces (“There is no alternative,” the perfect conservative slogan).
Of course, a political ideology can be a mix of conservative and reactionary or conservative and progressive (I’ll let you decide on reactionary/progressive), and I’d say that former pair is pretty important for understanding the ideology of the Republicans, but don’t let that exaggerate in your mind the piddling degree to which the latter pair applies to Democrats.
Is that a better explanation? Whether this is how you personally want to use the words or not, this will help you understand how socialists use them.
How’d you get a picture of me?
The people who told me that were 100% boomers. There’s that idiotic saying “if you’re not liberal* when you’re 20, you have no heart. If you’re not conservative when you’re 40 you have no brains” ok boomer.
Note this is using the US meaning of liberal, not to mean “capitalist”.
The one I’ve heard replaces “brains” with “money.”
To the point at least. The impression I always got was that it was meant to imply you’d have money by then and not want to pay taxes.
In the mid 20th-century, people reliably got more petty bourgeois as they got older.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379422000452
Yep, correlation, not causation. Getting older doesn’t cause it.
There’s a much better correlation between wealth and conservatism than age. Almost like those who begin to benefit from the system of oppression are incentivesed to keep it going.
Yup but I have seen it in my peers unfortunately. Honestly though not in the ones who were actually passionate. Like the guy who started the environmental club is as left as he ever was but like the one friend I had I think just parroted what most of his friends said atm.
