China has a fascist government that cosplays as communist.

Let me guess: you listened to a German christian fundamentalist, who has never set a foot on Xinjiang, hallucinate lies about Uygurs in concentration camps?

Look at your outfit in the mirror and take off one verbal flourish before you click post

challenged even less

Gonna have to disagree with this part. Remember the 90's? Early 00's?

No? China has a communist government over a socialist system. The working classes run the state, and social ownership is the principal aspect of its economy. Fascism would be a bourgeois-run state with private ownership supplemented by state control.

Why doesn't communism "work as intended?" What is "true socialism?"

Oh, so the fascism one is the United States.

Better not tell conservatives. Jk, as if they'd think about this comment.

Yes, the US is fascist.

I mean... Compare the outccomes of west and east germany... History isn't in communism's favor, at all...

The thing is: has Communism ever produced a good example in any country or historical period?
Most religions are also based on some very good principles, but I can't think of a country where a theocracy produced a good place for people to live. So, I don't know.... there might be a fundamental disconnect between how good the principles are and how badly they adapt to human nature?
Not a critique, please believe me. I really want to be educated on this.

true

That's what my middle school history teacher said, who was also my gym coach. 🤡

Essentially, communism is socialism within a classless society. Star Trek is communist.

Even the word "propaganda" itself has been manipulated by us into a meaningless pejorative over the last 100 years, originally a benign "spreading of ideas".

Weird, if they call "work as day laborers without job security or a company dormitory" homeless, then in USA (or Poland) there is suddenly at least a double digit of homelessness. Also last time when i checked, bourgeois media loved nomad workforce chasing trash jobs.

Capitalism has destroyed our planet, becoming an existential threat to the human species and all other complex life on Earth.

But yeah, cumyouism bad...mmmkay👍🤤

Yeah? And I'm the Queen of Spain. Anything is possible when you just make shit up.

China wasn't Communist

The Global North is irredeemable. The vassals are as smart as the suzerain which is not at all.

Yep, it's all definition pervertry to dodge the central point that China is rapidly getting better for working people year over year. They see China as a static snapshot and focus on how we define their present conditions to obfuscate how their conditions are changing.

China has been socialist since 1949.

Life expectancy doubled in China under Mao. Footbinding was ended, industrialization rapidly expanded, and famine was permanently ended. China was a semi-feudal backwater before the communists took charge and began restoring the sovereignty of China.

For anyone curious, they are, according to themselves, a Taiwanese capitalist:

I didn’t know what I wanted to do until I was well in my 30s. Prior to that, I worked at a very big retail bank and worked from a teller to a regional manager with over 220 stores under me.

You know what. I fucking hated every moment of that job.

I quit after my mom passed and they gave me 2 weeks off and then I was back into the grind.

I took 1 year off and decided to go into tech. The one place I enjoyed doing on my spare time.

I got my first tech job at 36. And since then have owned my own company and worked for big corporate companies.

You sorta have to try things and hate things before you know what you want.

It makes perfect, logical sense for OP whose background is in finance and has owned a business to despise socialism. This is their bias.

Comparing west and east Germany, eastern Germans enjoyed more secure lives with better safety nets, and were strapped for luxuries because the Soviet Union sought reparations for World War II. The western side was not de-Nazified like the eastern side was, and was flooded with cash and NATO armaments from the US Empire to serve as a foothold against the socialist bloc.

spineless

I would not call what france people are doing "spineless" and even the (IMO) the most spineless of europe (Italians) burned down at least 1 building and are protesting, sud italian farmers even refused to work and are blocking roads with some mayors supporting 'em

yeah ok man not like Denmark has a history of reprehensible shit like repressing the inuit on Greenland with sterilization and kidnapping children. A lot of Danish people get really possessive with Greenland whenever the locals want independence and it's gross.

Not to mention how Denmark is a big supporter of "Israel" and love being a spy network against other European countries for the CIA.

I've read quite a few books on communist history, and China is a particular area of interest for me given that they are the biggest currently-standing socialist country with the longest history of socialism. Do you have any recommendations? For what it's worth, equating communists to the Nazis is a form of Holocaust trivialization, and is a core component of Double Genocide Theory. I'm not sure I put much stake in the views of someone that lets their hatred of communism trivialize the Holocaust, but I'm always interested in exploring dissenting views, if only to reinforce or sharpen my own existing views.

The truth is that life expectancy doubled in China under Mao. Anyone saying life was made worse by the communists is either extremely ignorant, or purely looking at it from the perspective of the former ruling class.

Accusing communists of not reading books is very funny. We're like the only ones that read books.

The last time I pressed a lib on recommending theory, they just said, "a text book" lmao.

Even Wikipedia, which is biased towards western liberalism, disagrees with you:

Deaths by famine

The exact number of deaths by famine is difficult to determine, and estimates range from 15 million to 55 million people.[4][93][94] Because of the uncertainties which are involved in estimating the number of deaths which were caused by the failure of the Great Leap Forward and the ensuing famine and because of the uncertainties which are involved in estimating the numbers of deaths which were caused by other famines, it is difficult to compare the severity of different famines. If an estimate of 30 million deaths is accepted, the failure of the Great Leap Forward caused the deadliest famine in the history of China, and it also caused the deadliest famine in human history.[95][96] This extremely high loss of human lives was partially caused by China's large population. To put things into absolute and relative numerical perspective: in the Great Irish Famine, approximately 1 million people[97] out of a total population of 8 million people died, or 12.5% of Ireland's entire population. If approximately 23 million people out of a total population of 650 million people died during the Great Chinese Famine, the percentage would be 3.5%.[4] Hence, the famine during the Great Leap Forward had the highest absolute death toll, though not the highest relative (percentage) one.

The thing is: has Communism ever produced a good example in any country or historical period?

Depends on what you consider "good." You can define good so strictly that no country has ever qualified. You can also define it based on the standards of historically wealthy countries with high standards of living built off of slavery and colonialism. If you do either of those, the answer is probably no.

Otherwise, if you look at socialist systems in comparison to 1) what they had before, and 2) what other options were realistically open to them, the answer is yes.

• China had a life expectancy in the 30's that remained there through the Qing, the warlord period, and the nationalists. As soon as the communists came to power and redistributed the land to the people, life expectancy skyrocketed, doubling within a generation. In spite of those improvements, in 1980 over 90% of the population was still living in extreme poverty, which has now been entirely eradicated.

• Vietnam was ruled by a brutal colonial oppressor and fought against a corrupt far-right puppet regime, the communists won and established autonomy, raised standards of living and developed the country, and put down Pol Pot, stopping the Cambodian genocide.

• Russia under the tsar was drafting hordes of people to be thrown into the pointless meat grinder of WWI, rather than focusing on domestic development and industrialization. Even when there were reforms, the "moderates" were still insistent on staying in the war and reclaiming lost territory. Once Lenin came to power, he took the L to get out of the war and refocused on domestic development and industrialization. Standards of living rose, and the USSR rapidly transformed from a feudal backwater into a global superpower, even with bearing the brunt of the costs of WWII (which they were only able to do because of that development).

• Cuba had a corrupt gangster state that was a puppet of the US. Once the communists took over, they conducted a very successful literacy campaign and trained so many doctors that they've not only provided medical care to their own people, but also sent them abroad to help with humanitarian crises. They have, however, suffered a lot because of the US blockade (which has been condemned by the UN 165-7). In the past, they could have relied on the USSR for assistance, but without it many countries have had to stand on their own against US imperialism, without another option to turn to.

Sure. I'll try to answer the best I can, but I'll start by saying this is a very complex topic and it's really worth reading some other materials on it depending on what you're interested in specifically.

I'll start with the most important point which is: Socialism isn't just one static thing. It is essentially a belief in radical democracy. That the majority of people, the people actually doing the work in society, ought to be the ones who get to control their economic and political lives. This is hindered by the means of production, the tools and materials needed to make stuff, being owned by a handful of people who don't work and have incentives which are in direct opposition to those of the workers. How exactly create this transition and then manage society in the future is in our hands, but it's not a set path. It's on us to analyze our situation and make decisions accordingly. We can make the wrong decisions, but at least we got to make them. There is no inevitable outcome of a socialist project because we're the ones responsible for making it happen.

By contrast, capitalism is a system that is mostly controlled by market forces. Even in the idealized version of capitalism, nobody is in the driver's seat. The world we see today was not the deliberate result of any intentional action by a person or group, but by essentially an evolutionary process by which competition filters out less profitable businesses and elevates more profitable ones. Of course, capitalist economists would say that this is a good thing and a reason for it's "success." They'd say, among other things, that humans cannot make decisions that are as good as the results of this "natural" process and therefore, we should let that process go in order to produce the best results for society. What a Marxist economist points out is that these forces actually result in some inherent contradictions which lead to social problems which this system cannot naturally overcome. I'd also have you ask the question: WHO has capitalism helped? Progress isn't even. What helps some people may not help, or may even hurt others. What metric for progress can we realistically use to account for the fortunes of a capitalist, the deaths and injuries of people in sweatshops, homeless people, people in other countries exploited by imperialism, etc.?

Basically, I can tell you why capitalism will inevitably end up acting in a certain way because we know how it works. It's almost like a math question. Socialism isn't bound by any specific thing other than our own creativity, ingenuity, and will. Past and present socialist societies don't represent a fixed end goal, they are history we can learn from, good and bad.

As far as those specific societies go, there's so much reading to do on this to fully understand the topic and it's not like I'm even an expert, but I'd push back on the idea that "socialism" has failed to create good outcomes for people. Each of these countries has their own particular history and material conditions and we should analyze them with those in mind.

• Russia was an agrarian feudal society that was way behind the west in industrial development. It also took a lot of the brunt of damage from WWII. Despite this and having to fend off antagonism by the US, they managed to develop society into a modern industrialized economy.

• China was an agrarian feudal society in it's death throes beset by exploitation by European colonialists carving out economic spheres of influence. It fought off Imperial Japan in WWII with massive loss of life. Immediately following this, they were abandoned by their supposed allies in the west who then helped rebuild their former enemy. Despite this, they have evolved into a modern economy that rivals and in some ways surpasses the US economy. You might say that this is due to their market reforms, but the key part of those market reforms is that the state retained control over key sectors of the economy and were able to deliberately make use of foreign capital towards their own developmental ends. It's yet to be seen if in the long term this is going to work out or if the rise of a capitalist class in China will lead to their eventual political dominance.

• Vietnam was a colony which had to fight off it's owners, then the US along with the dictator they propped up. This was a pretty viscous war that killed many and ruined what infrastructure they had. On top of that, the use of Agent Orange has had long lasting effects. There are STILL children being born today with birth defects due to Agent Orange. After the war they were the subject of US sanctions for some time. And yet, again they became a rapidly developing economy that while not quite at the level of China or the US, has made some massive strides towards becoming a modern nation.

• Korea also dealt with the horrors of Imperial Japan during WWII followed up by a dictator and then a war by the US which absolutely leveled their infrastructure. While the US assisted the south in rebuilding, they isolated the North. They definitely haven't had the success of countries like China, but the fact that they've had any progress under such harsh conditions should be considered a miracle.

• Cuba used to be a playground for foreign capitalists who owned plantations, casinos, etc. Their revolution was immediately followed by the US isolating them and repeatedly trying to sabotage them. Again, it's hard to make much progress when you have no access to trade with the rest of the world and have to be constantly on guard against a superpower at your doorstep, but even then, they've managed quite a bit. Cuba has had so much success with their healthcare system that they've been able to send doctors around the world on humanitarian missions as one example.

Were all of these societies perfect? No of course not. People are people and they will struggle and sometimes stumble, but were/are they complete failures owing to the inherent properties of socialism? No. But again, this is all a very cursory overview of the topic. I would highly encourage you to learn more for yourself on whatever part of this interests you most.

EDIT: Also, taking this back to capitalism, it has been responsible for tons of deaths and human suffering over the course of it's history, but people don't really consider that suffering in the same way as they do any suffering that happened during the history of various socialist societies. This isn't whataboutism, it's highlighting a flaw in the way we think about these issues. A famine caused by natural conditions in a country that has had famines for all of it's history? The failures of communism. Capitalism failing to feed large amounts of people while it produces more than enough food to do so? Apparently that's not a problem.

Well, then it's settled!

Communism killed a few members of your family, while capitalism kills half a million people every year (lowest possible estimate).

Clearly capitalism is the best we've got.

40-70 million

15-55 million

This actually corroborates john_save_america's comment, because the ranges overlap.

Margolin is one of the crank historians caught making up numbers in the Black Book of Communism, which famously included non-births as deaths, as well as Nazis killed during World War II as "victims of communism." Liberalism only cares about the freedom of private property and the capitalist class, workers be damned and enslaved.

Margolin is one of the crank historians caught making up numbers in the Black Book of Communism, which famously included non-births as deaths, as well as Nazis killed during World War II as "victims of communism." The benefits of socialism are immediately obvious when looking at the numbers:

Life expectancy from birth doubled under Mao, and the country was turned from a semi-feudal backwater ex-colony into a rising power.

The ranges overlap, but no scholar actually believes the 70 million number, and actual evidence backs numbers closer to 15 million. The history of famines in China is heavily politicized in the west to discredit socialism.

What the fuck does that have to do with my source? I didn’t cite the Black Book of Communism.

Because your source was caught making up claims in it?

I'm not saying Capitalism=good and I'm even open to accept Communism as the ethically superior alternative.
It's just that, while I see Communism as a good balance to unchecked neoliberalism in a democracy, when either side completely takes over, countries seem to drift toward two opposite (but also so similar) types of dictatorship.

I do see how "pure free market" is becoming a threat, as you write, and I would like to see a bit more socialism added to the democratic mix again.

Then why didn't life expectancy increase under the ROC?

Yes, any country can reap large benefits from industrialization and modern medicine, regardless of the economic system. But communists were the only major faction in China pushing for those things. Communists always push for those things when they aren't present, while for capitalists the record is much more spotty.

I didn't mean to generalize to all of europes population. Mainly its governments. And mainly germans. But also most of german citizens. We REALLY like to follow orders. It's like a fetish. So what's happening in france would never happen here. Especially not with that severity. Maybe to an extend localized in some areas like berlin and maybe parts of hamburg.
Overall the sentiment here is that most people are appalled by the violence and feel sad for that beautiful building that was burned down. And that's about it.

the french really know how to protest. Their neighbours to the right not so much, though.