The worst part is that in USA

Socialism = Communism

🤦‍♂️

Who talks like that?

Glad you acknowledge it.
Plenty here get real defensive for pointing that out.

I guess we are slightly less indoctrinated into bootlicking the authoritarian state.
We don't thank our regime troops for their service, our cops don't get free stuff in shops, etc...
No comically large flags or killer jet fly overs at sports games either.

It's not going to show up on the graph if it's unreported.

EDIT: like when they are in prison/camp, dead, unregistered immigrant or just unwritten

we'd also need a way to fight against homegrown fascism after that, but a good first step. tear down nato and the eu

Lol, so you think any evidence that conflicts with your presumptions about reality is just fake.

Even the fucking World Bank acknowledges that this data is accurate. Are you claiming they're faking numbers to make China look good? What, is George Soros behind it? How far does your conspiracy theory go?

Maybe you should try basing your beliefs on evidence instead of propaganda and ignorant assumptions.

Depends on what you mean by communism, if you mean single party rule with a near totalitarian dictator at the helm then that is bad, but if you mean socialist policies that put workers well being at the forefront of government policy then that is good.
Basically, marx good, lenin bad

No part of Leninism, in theory or practice, supports the idea of a single, near-totalitarian dictator. The term "dictatorship of the proletariat" originates in the era of Marx, and refers not to any individual dictator, but the working class itself as the rulers, makers, and dictators of society. The heads of state in socialist countries have all been selected with democratic processes, be they approval votes, votes based on elected delegates, etc. The heads of state have not had absolute power either, but instead often have less power than, say, the US head of state.

The necessity of a single party is because socialism is, in effect, a unitary system meant to represent a single class, the working class. Democratic centralism does not mean the absence of democracy, but the absence of organized factionalism and opposition within the socialist system. The necessity of a single system was already present with Marx, the advance of the vanguard path to socialism by Lenin was made based on Marxist understandings of class and the state.

If you believe Lenin is bad, then thinking Marx was good is hypocritical. Your issues with Lenin are based on a combination of sanitizing the views of Marx and accepting bourgeois misdirection about existing socialism as fact. If you truly believe Lenin was bad, then Marxism itself should also be seen as bad.

Socialism is a transitional mode of production and distribution towards communism, so in a way they are a part of the same process of communist construction.

Provide evidence supporting your claim, then.

Ok, then marx bad too, single party rule is a horrible idea that consolidates power in a new class if elites.

Your'e just trading capitalist robber barrons for party leaders, it's the same thing, different name.

Rule of law should derive from mandate from he masses, not a small group of party officials or powerful politically aspiring billionaires.

Single party rule is bad, two party rule is bad, the people should be represented by an amalgam of many varying policy views and have the ability to quickly remove politicians who fail to represent the people effectively.

Everyone's data on this sux. Not a representative of anything. Like the USSR once had a homeless rate of a grand total of zero because it was made illegal (I know I could bring the US or something into the example but it's actually funny seeing you get triggered by mention of the USSR). There are other biases like someone promising a bonus inside of the govt if there aren't any (reported) homeless people.

imperial core boomers for this level of “brainwashing

But why? They were actually around when USSR was alive and kicking. Unlike the youngsters you mentioned, who grew up in the world of unchallenged propaganda

That's not how class works, or the state. Class is not merely a level of power, but a social relationship, to ownership of the means of production and distribution. In any given class society, this distributes society into two broad classes, with various subcategories. The state is a result of this class struggle, and represents the ruling class of society, based on which class owns the commanding heights of the economy.

In socialism, the commanding heights are socially owned. Administrators do not have unique relations of ownership, but instead occupy socially necessary roles for the continuation of advancing production and distribution. In such a unified system, competing political parties do not at all prevent corruption, they enable it and accelerate it. The idea that decentralized competition in the political sphere is made to support a collectivized system is a bourgeois worldview of politics that sees the mechanisms of capitalism as eternal, rather than specific.

Contrasting with capitalism, the competition in the political sphere is the competition of the ruling class, which does not seek collectivization but instead a bigger individual slice of the pie. Where socialist administrators seek further collectivization and unification, capitalist administrators represent this or that wing of the capitalist class, which all fights in unity to preserve private property, and against each other for a bigger slice of the pie.

Socialist political parties are organizations of the most advanced of the working class politically. The most active, the most trained, the most developed. This does not make them a distinct class, this is a bourgeois view of class. Instead, it makes them occupy the social role of "proletarian intellectual" to borrow from Gramsci, which isn't a statement on intelligence at scale, but the social role they play in determining and shaping the thought of the entire proletariat as a class.

How do you envision socialism, with multiple political parties, not devolving into factionalism and breaking-up of society in a manner that allows the bourgeoisie to resurge?

You asked someone earlier:

How would I know you aren’t the one cherry picking?

That's a great question. If we all just blindly believe whatever we feel is true, then there's no possible way to determine who's right and who's wrong. That's why it's important to ground your beliefs in evidence. Because that way, we can actually determine who's right and who's wrong.

But there's clearly no point discussing anything with you, your views cannot be changed by evidence because they're not based on evidence. They're based solely on blind faith. They are fully unfalsifiable, and no matter what the world looks like in reality, there could never be any evidence that would change your mind. It's no different from arguing with a Flat-Earther.

If you ever get tired of worshipping at the alter of anti-communist propaganda and decide to start basing your beliefs on evidence instead of faith, hmu and we can continue this discussion then.

I don't feel like bringing evidence right now, I am having fun in these arguments. I also know I am not changing your opinion. I am not even that anti-communist, I am fine with siding with non-stalinist communists. Look around references in the wiki I mentioned before if you want evidence.

Mhm. Right, the evidence totally exists, you just "don't feel like showing it right now." And my girlfriend lives in Canada, that's why you never see her, no you can't see any evidence she exists, I just don't feel like showing you right now. Or ever.

No, and I find the implication that I must be Chinese and/or paid to talk about socialism seriously to be a pointless rhetorical dodge at best, and chauvanist at worst. If you cannot meaningfully engage with the discussion and would rather insult users while adding nothing of value, then I don't see why you don't have a better use of your own time elsewhere.

Okay fine, I will feed you with this one source https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajes.12324 here's one source (yes, it fits the definition of homelessness)

EDIT: there's a paywall, whoops... anyways I have stuff to do and can't look on btdigg for you

and I find the implication that I must be Chinese and/or paid to talk about socialism

Never claimed that. I am implying seeing what people say within this amazing country you are describing, of course ones that have found a VPN or something.

I'm not asking for a source about homelessness, I'm asking for a source that disproves the evidence I presented about the eradication of extreme poverty.

It's adjacent. I would consider being homeless extreme poverty.

Either way, it's dumb to say "no poverty = people see socialism". Socialism is when people own means of production, not when govt does stuff.

Are you from China? Let’s see your work contract.

Jumping straight to chauvinistic racism I see

We were discussing the eradication of absolute poverty, and went into what identified that and went into eradicating it. You return with a source on homelessness, which has the following to say:

Depending on how one defines homelessness, China has either a very tiny homeless population or an extremely large one. Compared to other countries, there very few vagrants: people living on the streets of China's cities without means of support. But if one counts the people who migrated to cities without a legal permit (hukou), work as day laborers without job security or a company dormitory, and live in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions on the edge of cities, there are nearly 300 million homeless.

Nobody denies the existence of underdeveloped housing in China. Calling them "homeless," however, is a stretch. The article itself identifies extremely low rates of vagrancy, which is much higher in capitalist countries. The ongoing development process in China now focuses on increasing the quality of housing and the availability of housing. What is not in question is that China consistently focuses on improving the lives of those most vulnerable in society, which does not improve at the snap of a finger, but through long development processes that drive real results.

Are you under the impression that the firewall prevents outsiders from looking in? The biggest limiting factor is translation of Mandarin to English, and who chooses to perform that, not China trying to keep any information from leaking.

You were given a clear definition of a real program that addressed a well-defined deficiency in society, and are responding to it by saying you subjectively interpret the label differently. Earlier you were discussing it as though the numbers were hidden or fabricated, now you're saying you don't agree with how they defined absolute poverty. In either case, however, you have not discounted that there was a clearly massive program targeting objectively defined metrics to mass success. The question at hand isn't if China is a far-future utopia or a dystopia, but where or not the working classes are put at the forefront of society, which is expressed through objective programs and measures.

Well then you're wrong. Extreme poverty has a specific definition, which you can find in my earlier link.

This is a big part of the problem. You look at China and judge it based on your standards of poverty, presumably coming from a country that was much wealthier historically. By looking only at the present, and only in absolute terms, you miss the direction that things have gone.

There are huge differences in the scope of things that you might consider "extreme poverty." Someone who can't afford a washing machine is poor, and someone who can't afford their next meal is also poor, but taking people from the latter to the former is a massive improvement in their life, even though privileged people might look at both and just see "poor."

This is why organizations like the World Bank use specific definitions for terms like "extreme poverty" rather than just going off vibes.

presumably coming from a country that was much wealthier historically

Lol, no, where I live is already in this thread.

Okay, imagine one of the homeless people (by the specific definition from Wikipedia) decides to get a place of their own for some reason. Congrats, they are now in extreme poverty. See how they are related?

I guess to be more precise in what they are likely referring to, Americans have associated communism with the specific characteristics, real or made up, of previous or existing socialist states.

So when someone not educated in Marxist theory tries to make the distinction between "socialism" and "communism," they're basically saying "No, we're not like those scary Russians and Chinese. We want to be like the civilized social democracies in Europe." In the process they simultaneously:

• Misunderstand what socialism and communism are.
• Play into the right wing narrative that these countries, and therefore any attempt at communism, would just mean authoritarianism even, not realizing that it is neither a critical part of communism in the abstract nor something Western "democracies" are free of.

Not necessarily maliciously. This is a product of the propaganda we've all been exposed to for so long.

I can and do speak to people from China, but in any case the propagation of English translations depends almost entirely on how western organizations choose to publish them or not.

Congrats, they are now in extreme poverty

No, they aren't. That's not how it's defined.

Your claim was:

Even if so, it’s pointless if the average worker can’t see the effect

I'm showing you evidence that 800 million people did see the effect.

Socialism is when people own means of production, not when govt does stuff.

It doesn't matter if the cat is white or black, so long as it catches mice.

I could not have predicted that is what you took from my comment. But yes. That Pol Pot. Congratulations on the reading comprehension part of the test, you still fail.

True or not, that was not China "applying" socialism. That was them doing stuff. They are still functionally equivalent to capitalism. The average person works for someone else who is making orders of magnitude more money than the worker.

Anyways, it seems my ban speedrun isn't working out they way I intended, although it may or may not have effect later.

You can define your terms however you like. Whatever you want to call the Chinese system, it lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty in a generation, which is an incredible accomplishment. As the World Bank link says, that accounts for three quarters of all poverty allieviation in the world, in the same time frame. You can criticize other stuff it does but you can't deny it's accomplishments, outside of dogma and conspiracy theories.

That's fair! Understood.

Communism is socialism without the socially liberal aspects… go ahead and vote for your strongdaddy because he’ll subsidize your house, but watch out when you try to complain that the river was polluted by the state electrical company.

They already do that under capitalism dumbass

And no, socialism isn't just "libbed up commuism". In both cases the workers own the state. Everything else is a fucking larp

Propaganda during the cold war was challenged even less, and there weren’t alternative sources of information outside of corporate mass media.

why the de-facto world language isn’t widely available in such an amazing country

have you considered why English is the "de-facto world language"? And therefor the context on "world"?

Socialism is a transitional mode of production and distribution between capitalism and communism, characterized by the working class as dominant and social ownership as rising and dominant. Communism is a fully collectivized society devoid of classes. "Social liberalism" has nothing at all to do with distinguishing the two, in fact communism will be more socially progressive than socialism as social struggles continue into socialism.

giving one group of people a different level of power to influence policy than another creates a class, to pretend like there wasn't nepotism or quid pro quo in the soviet union is to ignore the reality of human behavior and history.

as we see with systems with one political ideology, including the american capitalist system, a positive feedback loop commonly occurs that accelerates suffering, see the great famine in China, and the american healthcare system today.
these systems appear because the ruling class ingrains itself into power and controls cultural ideas through propaganda.
for example, the american anti-communist/anti-socialist propaganda that this meme references. communism and socialism are not the boogey-men that the capitalist politicians and billionaires want the american people to think they are. if we had a substantial communist party and socialist party in congress, this propaganda would be seen as ridiculous by most americans, because they would see that good that these political ideas do because they would have examples of it on the daily.

I would propose a lottery:
firstly, a mandatory, standardized civics course for all citizens that teaches varying political theories and views and their historical contexts.

all voting age citizens who have passed their civics curriculum would be eligible to hold office in the city/county/district/state they live in.
a percentage (for sake of argument let's say 1% of the constituency) of individuals would be selected, once selected they would present their policy platform.
a ranked choice vote is held, the selected individuals are ranked by the voting age citizens and one is elected to office (run-offs would be held like any ranked choice election)
the officer would serve a term of (for sake of argument let's say one year), at the end of which a vote-to-keep is held where their constituency would have one checkbox per office again, a checked box is a vote-to-keep their officer in their seat.
if they do not receive a number of votes (lets say for purpose of argument 50%) they are removed and can never hold office again and a new lottery is held to select a new officer from the pool of eligible individuals.

a vote-of-no-confidence would also be available to the people to remove officers at anytime that a petition for such passes (for sake of argument lets say the petition requires 25% of the constituency) (for sake of argument let's say 50% passes)

to account for competency, officers who have retained their office would be granted another ballet in the hat so-to-speak to increase their odds of attaining higher office and increasing overall competency in the electorate.

benefits:
this would create a more accurate representative government as the lottery effectively selects a sample of the electorate to hold office, meaning class divisions and personal backgrounds within the population are equally represented in the halls of government.
this puts the people directly in the hands of power, the lottery nearly removes any form of nepotism as people are selected at random, not based on who they know or how much money they have. (nepotism within the halls of government would still happen as officers work together in quid pro quo dealings but officers who fail to improve the lives of their constituency would be easily removed thanks to the vote-of-no-confidence) and as the system of democracy is based on coalitions and compromises, this is expected behavior.

this system nearly removes party politics from everyday people's lives. no more months long political campaigns with misinformation, no more special interested packing races with money.
this would greatly increase the prevalence of new political ideas as more people from more varying backgrounds would have access to power, as increasing the amount of legislation designed to directly improve the lives of the largest demographics in the country.

what if someone doesn't want to do the job? they can elect to avoid the lottery for any reason, we are selecting from a pool of nearly the entire population of the country, we have plenty of willing participants. this is also why a vote-of-no-confidence can work, plenty of competition for the job.

the vote-to-keep, or dead-man election as I like to call it creates a system where an officer can only maintain power by voter enthusiasm, you as a voter have to feel empowered to go and vote for your representative, a corrupt politician who is doing nothing for his constituents would not last long under a dead-man election system.

the shear size of the electable, the vote-of-no-confidence, and the simplicity of the vote-to-keep creates real political consequences for officers who do a bad job, unlike the single party or two party system, officers in my system will never hold office again if they are removed from power. this would not eliminate corruption, but it would greatly deter it and any corruption that exists would not last long.

why the lottery? to more accurately reflect the demography of the electorate and to select individuals who might otherwise never hold office to put more political ideas and lived experiences in the halls of government particularly those of backgrounds we rarely see in government today. and to create an expectation that governing power is all of our responsibility and it has real consequences for our daily lives.

Cool chart, what book is that from?

The 'transitional' argument is basically 'bigdaddy promises he'll make a utopia if we grant him totalitarian control'

Right off the bat, you are already ignoring what I said. I never said nepotism and corrpution did not exist in the USSR. I said that power is not class, class is a social relation to ownership of the means of production. Managerial workers are not their own class, just like plumbers are not their own class. You are confusing a type of labor for a relation to ownership, and thus conflate the two into class.

Your next example is again, confusing the nature of the state. Socialism and communism cannot be brought about by a socialist party winning electorally and replacing the state bit by bit into a socialist one via policy. There is no generic "state," there are capitalist states, socialist states, etc, and one state is broken and a new one takes its place through revolution alone.

As for replacing socialist democracy and scientific, planned organization with random lottery, this is a recipe for disaster. A truly democratic society is one where the working class as a whole is organized and capable of electing the best among themselves to higher organs, that can prove themselves through practice to their constituents. This can be organized via a single political party, that being the organization of the most politically developed of the working class.

You are explicitly rejecting a competency-based, democratic selection process with one that results in chaos and an easy-to-manipulate state that the bourgeoisie can overturn incredibly easily. This chaos is the foundation by which the bourgeoisie can bring about their own persistence.

In any case, you are getting into the weeds about a specific form of electoral democracy, while entirely ignoring the nature of class and the state. By your own definitions, you would be creating what you believe to be a ruling class. This is why it's important to actually understand the theory and history you are trying to critique, because all you have done thus far is wax poetic about lottery-based elections while vulgarizing class and the nature of the state.

Straw man, ad-hom, red herring.

We got em all here folks, get your fallacies!

We promise there will be absolutely no substance in our comments, just fallacies! Come one come all down to Fallacy Warehouse!!

We count on your ignorance to spread our fallacies without recognition, and get an extra special 25% off if you haven't read a book this year!!

Come on down!!